Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/1995_Regularr-I J CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING NO. 34 AUGUST 21, 1995 REGULAR ADJOURNED 7:00 P.M. A) CALL TO ORDER B) HEARINGS PAGE (1-4) 1) Application for Federal and State Transit Assistance (5-16) 2) 1996 Community Development Block Grant Program (17-18) 3) Residential Permit Parking Zone No. 3 "Mayo Park Neighborhood" (19-22) 4) Vacation Petition by Plaza 41 Northwest to Vacate the Utility Easements Located on Lot 1, Block 1, Plaza 41 Northwest (23-44) 5) Type III, Phase II Petition to Amend the Final Plan for the PUD (Wimbledon Hills) to Allow the Addition of Two Single Family Homes (45-66) 6) Amendment to Planned Unit Development (CirKit Concepts) to Change the Use of the Building to a Professional Office (67-74) 7) Continued Hearing/Sanitary Sewer in 23rd Avenue SW (75-140) 8) Land Use Plan Amendment on the West Side of Highway 63 South of 40th Street SW (141-158) 9) Zone Change Request by N.A. Realty, Franklin P. Kottschade, R- 1 to B-4 (General Commercial) on 74.32 Acres Along U.S., 63 South Southerly of 40th Street SW (159-160) C) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (161-164)-2) Request for Setting a Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Rochester Home Rule Charter (165-166) 3) Licenses and Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (167-168) 4) Sound Amplification Permits (169-170) 5) Approval of Accounts Payable (171-172) 6) Appointment to Task Force on Urban Design., (173-176) 7) Advertise for Bids/Signal Interconhect 2nd Street SW from T.H. 52 to llth Avenue & 11th Avenue West.from 2nd Street SW_to,,. 14th Street NW (177-178) D) LETTERS AND PETITIONS E) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (179-180) 1) (181-182) 2) (183-186) 3) City Administrator - City Administrator - City Administrator - Professional Services Agreement, with John Perkins to Update Emergency., Operations Plans Approval of Monitoring Well Installation Permit/Peoples Natural Gas Request for Lease/Culligan Company,; Lot 3, Block 2, Cook Subdivision � A Council Agenda August 21, 1995 page two (187-188) 4) City Administrator - Animal Shelter Bids (189-196) 5) City Administrator - Amendment to Graham Arena Management Agreement (197-198) 6) City Administrator - Council Authorization to Bid Civic Center Expansion (199-202) 7) City Administrator -.Government. Center Skyway Bids (203-204) 8) Charter Commission - Request to Cancel Public Hearing on Charter Amendment by Ordinance (205-206) 9) City Clerk - Expansion of Records Center in Basement of Rochester International Airport (207-208) 10) Library - Photocopier Concession (209-222) 11) Planning Dept. - Annexation by Ordinance/R.L. Hexum & Assoc. of 79.5 Acres of Vacant- Land/NW 1/4 of Section 25, Rochester Township (223-224) 12) Public Works - Bids/Reconstruct/Rehabilitate 1st Ave. SW from 1st St. SW to 3rd St. SW (225-226) 13) Public Works - Increase in Maximum Fee for Yaggy Colby Engineering Contract on Civic Center Drive (227-228) 14) Public Works - Bids/Resurfacing, Concrete Curb, Gutter - 41st Street NW/15th Avenue to Summit Square (229-230) 15) Public Works - Proposal by Yaggy Colby/Sanitary .Sewer & Watermain in Riverside Dr. NE, Erin Ct. NE & 27th St. NE (231-232) 16) Public Works - Assessment Agreements/Bel Air Drainage Ditch (233-234) 17) Public Works - Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for Eastridae Subdivision Phase I (235-236) 18) Public Works - Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for 4th Street SE; 3rd to llth Avenue SE (237-238) 19) Public Works - Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for Mayo Run Corridor Improvements (239-240) 20) Public Works - Engineering Contract for Cascade Creek Trail (241-242) 21) Public Works - Bids/Walkway South Side 41st Street NW from West Frontage Road to 31st Avenue NW (243-256) F) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES G) TABLED ITEMS (257-258) 1) Proposal by McGhie & Betts/Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Gates Drive SW H) OTHER BUSINESS MEETING DATE: 8/21/95 Hearings DESCRIPTION: Applications for Fede Assistance ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works/Traffic and State Transit ITEM NO. B-I AJ The purpose of this hearing is to provide an opportunity for public comment regarding applications for federal and state transit assistance for 1996. The state applications are being submitted at this time. The federal application will be submitted after final passage of an appropriations bill. The proposed funding is subject to change contingent on both federal and local budget processes. Per the attached notice (Exhibit "A") the applications are proposing to use $255,274 in federal operating assistant. This represents a 3316 reduction in federal operating assistance from 1995. It is also proposed to request $220,800 in federal assistance for improvements to the downtown bus stop and the purchase of two small buses. The proposed state share for operating is $799,212 or 25% over 1995. Exhibit "B" provides a summary of all funding sources for operating assistance. The applications for state funds do not request assistance for capital projects. The applications provide for the same level of service as in 1995. Council Action Reauested Adopt the prepared resolutions authorizing submission of applications -to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for 1996 transit assistance for both regular route and dial -a -ride services. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MASS TRANSIT ASSISTANCE Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Common Council of the City of Rochester,.Minnesota at 7:00 P.M., August 21, 1995 in the Council Chambers at City Hall for the purpose of considering applications for Federal and State transit assistance funds. This assistance is being sought for the following described projects: PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AND BUDGET Est. Federal Transit Apportionment for 1996 (1) 475,834 Carryover Federal Transit Funds 99,871 Transfer Funds (ASTI) 57,600 TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 6633,305 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS LOCAL STATE FEDERAL STATE I. Operating Assistance for 1996 for regular route and (2) dial -a -ride services 681,619 799,212 255,274 1,736,105 II. Capital Assistance a. Downtown Bus Stop Improvements 14,400 0 57,600 72,000 b. Purchase Two Small Buses 40,800 0 163,200 204,000 $736,819 $799,212 $476074 $2,012,105 1. based on an estimate of $255,274 operating and $220,560 capital 2. includes dial -a -ride fare of $39,747 & regular route fares of $429,588 and advertising revenue of $14,700. 3. Federal funding includes $57,600 from the Surface Transportation Program 0 3 / page - 2 - . SERVICE LEVEL - The proposed funding provides for the same number of service hours as in 1995. RELOCATION - "No persons, families, or businesses will be displaced by this project". F.NVIRONMFNTAr, "It is expected that this project will impact the environment favorably by supporting mass transit services thereby reducing the number of private automobile trips". COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - The proposed projects are in conformance with the City's Transit Development Plan. The projects are also included in the proposed 1996 Transportation Improvement Program for the Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments. FI.nP.RLY AND HANDTCAPPED - Concurrent with terms of this project, fares for disabled persons and individuals 65 years and over will be no more than half the regular fare during off peak hours on all regular routes. Currently off peak fares for disabled persons and individuals 65 years and over are 35 cents per single ride or 10 rides for $3.50. The regular adult fare is 75 cents per ride or 10 rides for $6.00. CHARTF.R RUS OPERATIONS - The operator(s) to be assisted does provide charter service outside the Rochester service area. This • service is considered t be incidental or unrelated to the operation of mass transit within the Rochester area. Assistance to be requested is not in support for such charter services. S HOO, BUS SERVICE- The operator(s) to be assisted to not engage in school bus operations exclusively for the transportation of students or school personnel. Assistance to be requested is not in support for such school services. At the hearing, opportunity will be provided for persons to be heard with respect to the project. Interested persons may also submit comments in writing to the address below. A copy of the applications are available for public inspection at the following location: Rochester Department of Public works Transportation Division 1602 4th Street S.E. Rochester, MN 55904 Carole A. Grimm City Clerk 0 PRINT: 8/10/95 8/19/95 EXHIBIT "B" TABLE II. FUNDING ,CY 1996 FUNDING FEDERAL(l) STATE CITY OTHER LOCAL SPONSOR OLMSTED COUNTY TOTAL CY95STATE CONTRACT CHANGE/95-96 33% REDUCTION IN FED W/ STATE MAKING UP SHORTFALL FIXED ZIPS PROPOSED CY 1995 PER CY 1995 ROUTE DAR TOTAL BUDGET REVISED(2) $171,034 $84,240 $255,274 $448,409 $382,911 $716,755 $82,458 $799,212 $573,307 $638,804 $147,571 $0 $147,571 $109,967 $109,967 $0 $8,680 $8,680 $4,800 $4,800 $0 $41,333 $41,333 $36,161 $36,161 $1,035,359 $216,712 $1,252,071 $1,172,644 $1,172,643 $577,992 $60,813 24.0 35.6 (1) ESTIMATED FTA FOR FY96 $255,274 based on estimated 1/3 reduction from cy95 operating cap FTA FUNDING IS SPLIT BETWEEN DIAL -A -RIDE & REGULAR ROUTE 33/67% RESPECTIVELY. NOTE: ADV REV ARE ALREADY DEDUCTED FROM DEFICIT (2) FED & STATE SHARES WERE REVISED AFTER THE USDOT APPROPRIATIONS BILL WAS APPROVED. • • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 15 LL AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings City Administrator DESCRIPTION: 1996 Community Development Block Grant Program ITEM NO. �2 PREPARED BY: D. Olson The Public Hearing on the 1996 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program was scheduled August 21st and a large display ad was published in the Post Bulletin. Comments on the proposed program are to be taken at the hearing, but no appropriations will be made or action taken at this meeting. Following the hearing, the individual appropriation forms are to be filled out by the Councilmembers and are to be submitted to the Administrator's Office between August 21-25, 1995. The Council will review the individual appropriations and is tentatively scheduled to make their decisions on the 1996 CDBG appropriations at a second public hearing scheduled for the September 5, 1995, meeting. At this time we have not received any confirmation from HUD on the exact amount of CDBG funding that will be received in 1996; however, we are using an estimate of $652,000. The City received this same amount in 1995. If the funding that is received is more or less than the $652,000 estimate, the City will need to adjust the amount of the appropriations to the 1996 recipients. The individual requests for CDBG funds have been submitted to the Council separately from the agenda due to their length. The City also received financial information on each non-govemmental applicant in the form of IRS Form 990. The only exception is the Community Youth Mentorship Program which has not had their 1994 Form 990 completed by their accountant yet. We will be expecting to receive a copy of their 1993 Form 990 in the next several days. These Form 990s were not copied with the applications since they are fairly lengthy; however, they are available upon request from the City Administrator's Office. As we have done for the past several years, this office is strongly recommending that needed funding for the continuing of the Consolidated Planning Dept./Housing Division Single Family Home Rehab project and the cost of the HRAs administration of this CDBG program be provided up front prior to considering the other requests. The amounts recommended for 1996 are a minimum of $230,000 for the Single Family Home Rehab program. This is down slightly from $250,000 in 1995. The Housing Division is requesting, and we are recommending, $25,000 to administer the overall program. This is the same amount as 1995 and represents approximately 3.8% of the total grant amount. When these amounts are subtracted from the $652,000, there will be $397,000 remaining to be appropriated. This office also recommends strong consideration be given to the request of the Park and Recreation Department's request for the modifications to park facilities required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These improvements are required under ADA and if they are not funded with CDBG dollars, they will likely have to be funded with property tax dollars. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Hold and close the public hearing. The applicants should be advised that another hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, September 5, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. after which the Council will approve the appropriation of the 1996 CDBG funds. ACTION: Motion Second by: to: X, TO: David L. Olson, Assistant to the City Administrator FROM: Theresa M. Fogarty; CDBG Administrator DATE: August 16, 1995 RE: 1996 Community Development Block Grant Requests TOTAL CDBG REQUESTS: $1,206,996 The following is a review of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) request primarily containing comments on eligibility, fundability, previous appropriations, balances and program benefit. A. PUBLIC SERVICES. The following are eligible activities as indicated in the CDBG regulations 507.201(e). Please note that the amount allocated for public services cannot exceed 15% of the Grant Allocation (507.201(e)(1)). This year's estimated grant amount is $652,000, therefore, the total amount of • the public services allocation cannot exceed $97,800. 1. ARC Olmsted. Incorporated in 1955 to improve the quality of life for people with mental retardation. Requesting funds to assist covering the cost of administration for their Advocacy Program and People First Program. The advocacy program works with volunteers who provide support, continuing educational opportunities, participation in civic organizations, work with social service agencies ensuring that mentally retarded individuals are informed of services can enhance their lives and increase their independence. The People First Program coordinates monthly organizational meetings, provides technical assistance and educational support to mentally retarded individuals. ARC Olmsted, in the past, have included high school age individuals with disabilities. All participants of ARC Olmsted are low - moderate income individuals. Total cost of the program is $36,875. Additional funding providedamounts to $20,875. Past CDBG expenditures amounted to $10,200 in 1989, $8,318 in 1990, $14,500 in 1991, $14,500 in 1992, $9,000 in 1993, $8,000 in 1994 and $12,100 in 1995. Expenditure rate has been excellent. Amount Requested: $16,060 . . 2. Bear Creek Services. Bear Creek Services, Inc. was formed by Rochester citizens as Olmsted ARC Homes in 1975 to provide residential and support services to persons with development disabilities or mental retardation. Support and donations from parents, businesses, and community service groups enable Bear Creek Services, Inc. to open the first group home in Rochester in 1976. Since that time, Bear Creek Services has opened three more homes, each serving six adults. In January of 1995, Bear Creek Services implemented a major agency, transition, to enable them to continue to provide community residences for aging residents of Rochester with developmental disabilities. A new, twin- plex was completed. Bear Creek Services Inc. is requesting CDBG funding to purchase a new mini -van capable of accommodating individuals with age -related limitations. The purchase of the vehicle will allow the residents to continue their involvement and contributions to the Rochester community. All participants of Bear Creek Services, Inc. are low income individuals. Bear Creek Services received CDBG funding in the past as follows: $17,000 in 1991, $16,000 in 1993 and $13,600 in 1994 for the purchase of a handicapped van, supporting the residents of the new twinplex. Past spending of CDBG funds has been at an excellent rate. Amount Requested: $20,000 3. Qhild Care Resource and Referral Inc. (CCRR). CCRR is a multi- program, private non-profit agency providing child care services for low= moderate income families. CCRR is requesting 1996 CDBG funding to assist with the cost of child care for families residing in Rochester, who are attending school or working. Nine percent of the funding request will be used to assist with the administration of the program. Child Care Resource and Referral, Inc. has received, in the past, from the CDBG program, $322,369 for child care subsidies and $68,600 in 1995 for the purchase/rehab of a building for the Head Start Program. Past expenditures has been excellent, although they have not committed any funding for the Head Start Facility. Amount Requested: $80,000 2 P 4. Community Youth Mentorship Program. The Community Youth Mentorship Program was established to provide proactive, community based, cross-cultural, enrichment programs for youth 10-17 with individualized social, recreational, career and academic experiences. All youth are from low -moderate income families as verified. through the Channel One Program. The Community Youth Mentorship is requesting CDBG funding to assist with the cost of administration of their programs. The Community Youth Mentorship has received CDBG funding in 1994 in the amount of $20,000 and in 1995 in the amount of $21,600. Spending rate has been excellent. Amount Requested: $72,000 5. Omnia Family Services, Inc. A non-profit organization founded in 1987. Provides service to any child and family who cannot be served by present foster care system. Clients of Omnia Family Services are low -moderate income as verified through Olmsted County Social Services and the Court system. This request is to purchase a used van for staff use. Omnia Family Services has received $77,450 from CDBG funding in the past to assist with the cost of administration of their programs and $8,500 in 1995 for the purchase of used van and computer equipment. Spending rate has been very good. Amount Requested: $10,000 6. Omnia Family Services. Inc. Resume of agency described above. Omnia Family Services, Inc. is requesting CDBG funding to purchase computers and office equipment. Amount Requested: $8,668 7. Southeastern Minnesota Private Industry Council, Inc. (PIC). PIC is requesting funding for their Rochester Off -Campus Alternative School. This is a year-round project providing academic, life and work skills development to youth at -risk of further delinquent activities. These students are facing educational failure due to delinquent activities, school truancy, dropout, suspension, or expulsion, lack of academic achievement, justice system involvement and chemical issues. Forty one percent of the recipients are on public assistance. If PIC were to receive CDBG funding, a minimum of 70% of the clients must be low -moderate income. PIC is requesting CDBG funding to purchase educational equipment 41 (seven computers, three multi -media computer kits, TVNCR, antenna, overhead projector), physical educational equipment and health equipment, shop & science lab equipment, 15 passenger van and tables, bookcases and furniture. Southeastern Minnesota Private Industry Council has requested CDBG funding in the past, but have never received an allocation. Amount Requested: $34,150 8. We Can House. In 1993 the We -Can Corporation opened a house for low income individuals with severe and persistent mental illness. We Can provides adult foster care with 24 hour supervision. The We Can House operates a facility for men only and a second facility for women only. The We Can Corporation is requesting funding for staff support. Staff support consists of monthly meetings, working with the residents providing enhancement of communication skills, responsible decision making, personal issues, development of self-confidence and social skills. The We Can Corporation received CDBG funding in the amount of $3,000 in 1992 for accessibility remodeling at the We Can House I and $5,100 to assist with the cost of administration for the We Can,House II. All residents of the We Can House I and II are low income. Amount Requested: $18,000 9. PossAbilities of Southeastern Minnesota. A non-profit organization founded in 1961 by parents and advocates for persons with. developmental disabilities. This agency was one of the original nine pilot projects established by the Minnesota State Legislature to support individuals with developmental disabilities in their home communities. Individuals are low -moderate income. PossAbilities of Southeastern Minnesota has been provided employment opportunity to individuals within the Rochester community. Currently there are 18 individuals served by PossAbilities of Southeastern Minnesota. PossAbilities is requesting CDBG funding for the purchase of two ADA equipped lift vehicles allowing individuals reliable and timely transportation to and from work. PossAbilities has a goal of have 45 working individuals working in the community by the end of 1996. Estimated cost is $30,000 per vehicle. PossAbilities has not requested CDBG funding in the past. 0 Amount Requested: $26,000 to 10. Rochester/Olmsted Community Housing Partnership. Inc. (ROCHP). A non-profit founded by community leaders in 1989. ROCHP is dedicated to insuring the availability of suitable and affordable housing for lower is - income households in the City of Rochester and Olmsted County. ROCHP is requesting CDBG funding for downpayment assistance in conjunction with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ECHO Program. For every local dollar provided the state supplies an additional $2.80. This is the only downpayment assistance available with mortgage loans. ROCHP received $20,000 in CDBG funding in 1994 for this downpayment assistance program. Twenty one families with gross annual incomes not exceeding 50% of median have been eligible for the downpayment assistance. Amount Requested: $50,000 11. Ability Building Center (ABC). ABC is a not -for -profit vocational rehabilitation work center serving persons with disabilities. They are continually provided realistic and appropriate work for over 500 persons each year with varying degrees of limitation skills. ABC is requesting CDBG funding to purchase a wheelchair accessible mini -van and driver to transport disabled persons to and from work sites in the Rochester community. ABC has received a total of $144,900 of CDBG funding since 1978 for activities relating to the employment of disabled persons. Amount Requested: $46,000 TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICES REQUESTS: $379,708 r � U • B. ARCHITECTURAL BARRIER REMOVAL. The following is an eligible activity as indicated in the CDBG regulations 570.208(a)(2). CDBG funds may be used to removal material and architectural barriers which restrict the mobility and accessibility of elderly and handicapped persons to publicly or privately owned buildings and facilities. City of Rochester, Park & Recreation Department. All shelters are in need of some accessibility modification to meet with the new ADA standards. Such improvements consist of parking, access from parking lots, bathroom facilities, access from shelters to playground equipment and signage. CDBG funding was allocated in 1994 for improvements at the Silver Lake West Side Shelter and in 1995 for the Cooke Park Shelter. The 1996 CDBG funding requested will be used to complete the Silver Lake West Side Shelter, Cooke Park Shelter and begin improvements at Slatterly Park. Amount Requested: $75,000 2. We Can House. Resume of agency described above. We Can House is • requesting CDBG funding to construct a ramp, meeting ADA requirements at the We Can House II. Amount Requested: $4,000 3. Rochester Area Family Y: A Minnesota based non-profit organization providing for the spiritual, mental and physical well-being of the individual, family and community. The Rochester Area Family Y has a total of 5638 member and serves 478 of those members with financial assistance. Financial assistance is open to all who qualify based on income. Currently the Rochester Area Family Y is being used more by persons with disabilities. The Rochester Area Family Y is requesting CDBG funding to be used for remodeling locker -room facilities into two separate and efficient locker rooms. They are also requesting installation of electric doors and a new ramp leading to the already accessible pool. The locker rooms will be updated as having more accessibility features offered. Total cost of the project is $45,000. This is the first time the Rochester Area Family Y has requested CDBG funding. Amount Requested: $20,000 11 c9 4. Southeastern Minnesota Center for Independent Living, Inc. . (SEMCIL). This agency is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing rights, choices and equality for low -moderate income persons with disabilities. SEMCIL is requesting CDBG funding to continue with the Home Modification Rehabilitation Program which provides a maximum of $1,500 grant per property strictly for access modifications. SEMCIL . received $16,200 in 1994 and $28,300 in 1995 for this program. Spending has been good. Amount Requested: $50,000 TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL BARRIER REMOVAL REQUESTS: $149,000 C. REHABILITATION: The following are eligible activities as indicated in the CDBG regulations 570.201(b). MN Department of Natural Resources. The MN Department of Natural Resources provides a program known as the Minnesota Conservation Corps in Southern Minnesota. This program employs 18-25 year old young adults that are unemployed or underemployed Minnesota residents. The MN Department of Natural Resources recently became an Americorps program that allows them the flexibility of working on projects is the community. The MN Department of Natural Resources is applying for CDBG funding to employee a crew of three persons to work on projects that would assist elderly and handicapped low income persons. Such projects would consist of lawn and garden maintenance and small construction projects such as shoveling driveways, mowing lawns, minor home repair, such as replacing light bulbs, fixing leaky faucets, cleaning and repairing gutters. Funding is needed to assist with the cost of salaries, a 4-wheel drive pick- up (lease for 6 months), purchase of snowblower, lawnmower, rakes, shovels, ladders, gas, loppers, small tools, and administration costs. This is the first request for CDBG funding from the MN Department of Natural Resources. Amount Requested: $34,688 2. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center. Inc. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center is a private, non-profit organization that has served the mental health and chemically dependency service needs of southeastem Minnesota since 1965. It's mission statement reflects a long standing commitment to responsiveness to the communities it serves and in • 7 l3 • creating and maintaining programs that are affordable. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center is requesting CDBG funding to replace the existing driveway at THOMAS House, add a walkway to the front of the house and a paved area for basketball in the backyard. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center has received $185,315 in CDBG funding since 1979 for acquisition, rehab and administration of programs. Past spending has been excellent. Amount Requested: $8,600 3. Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department: Consolidated agency providing services for the City of Rochester and Olmsted County. This request is to continue administration of the home rehabilitation program that provides assistance to low -moderate income single family homeowners for home improvements. This program is administered in . several target areas within the City of Rochester. This program has been active for twelve years, this being the first year CDBG funding being retained by the City of Rochester. In the past the Rochester Housing Authority has requested this funding. This program provides an affordable financing tool for homeowners to eliminate substandard housing conditions. Because of their lack of financial resources, low and moderate income homeowners are unable to obtain financing elsewhere for the improvements. This program provides that opportunity and does not create a financial burden through an additional monthly payment. Funds are provided to a homeowner in the form of a zero interest, deferred loan which must be paid when the homeowner sells or transfers title to the property. Of the total amount requested, $30,000 will be used for administration. of the program. Past spending has been excellent Amount Requested: $230,000 4. Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department The City of Rochester moved CDBG funding from inactive activities during 1995 for the creation of the Rental Rehab Program. A total of $125,500 was available for improvement to rental properties consisting of four or less units. CDBG funds are available in the form of a zero interested deferred loan which must be paid by when the owner sells or transfers title to the property. In 1995, eight properties (27 units) were completed. There is currently 28 owners on the waiting list. Of the total amount requested, $20,000 will be used for administration of the program. • Amount Requested: $240,000 [] 14, TOTAL REHABILITATION REQUESTS: $513,288 _ 1 D. ACQUISITION. The following are eligible activities as indicated in the CDBG regulations 570.201(a). Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity was established in 1990 in response to a county -wide housing survey which identified a critical need for affordable housing in the area. As an affiliate of Habitat for Humanity International, Rochester Area Habitat subscribes to the philosophy and values of the international organization. Habitat's mission is to build simple, decent, affordable housing for the working poor in our community. In the past Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity has received funding to purchase a total of six lots at various locations throughout the city. Currently three of the lots have homes completed, the remaining three are in the processing of being completed. Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity is requesting 1996 CDBG funding to purchase four building lots within the City of Rochester. Amount Requested: $40,000 TOTAL ACQUISITION REQUESTS: $40,000 E. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. The following activities are eligible as described in the newly revised regulations, dated February 6, 1995. 1. Rochester Area Economic Development. Inc (RAEDI). RAEDI is proposing to provide gap financing for microenterprse businesses. Many times a local bank is willing to lend a portion of the proceeds needed, but a gap between the borrowed funds and owners equity will often exist. CDBG funds will not exceed 50 percent of the entire project. It is anticipated that loans and/or guarantees made to businesses will be in the $7,000415,000 range. Assisting with the creation of microenterprise business with provide jobs for low -moderate income persons. Amount Requested: $100,000 TOTAL AMOUNT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS: $100,000 1 • • 0 lvto:0�1 . F. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION. This activity is eligible as described in the CDBG Regulations 570.206(a). No more than 20% of the anticipated grant ,allocation can be used for program administration. This year's estimated grant amount is $652,000, therefore, the total amount of program administration cannot exceed $130,400. Program Administration. Funds requested to assist with overall program management, coordination, monitoring and evaluation of the CDBG Program for the City of Rochester. Staffing is provided by the Rochester - Olmsted Planning Department, Housing Division. CDBG funds have been appropriated to this activity each year. Amount Requested: $25,000 TOTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION REQUEST: $25,000 Attached for your information is a copy of each application requesting the Community Development Block Grant funds. I have labeled the cover page of each application to correspond to the category which it is identified (ex: ARC Olmsted A-1). Also, non-profit agencies requesting CDBG funding have enclosed their 990 forms. This are under separate cover. • Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. sdr/cdb9/cifizenp/reg96 • 10 I -OK g z 1996 CDBG FUNDING REQUESTS COUNCIL APPROPRIATION FORM TOTAL TO BE APPROPRIATED $652,000 . PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION APPROPRIATION (25,000) SINGLE FAMILY REHAB APPROPRIATION (230,000) AMOUNT REMAINING FOR 1996 APPROPRIATION $397,000 APPLICANT REQUESTED RECOMMENDED Public Service Requests A) Arc of Olmsted County $ 16,000 $ B) Bear Creek Services $ 20,000 $ C) Child Care Resource and Referral $ 80,000 $ D) Coummunity Youth Mentorship $ 72,000 $ E) Omnia Family Services $ 10,000 $ (Used Van) . F) Omnia Family Services $ 8,558 $ (Computers and Office Equipment) G) SE MN Private Industry Council $ 34,150 $ H) We Can House $ 18,000 $ I) PossAbilities of SE MN $ 26,000 $ J) Community Housing Partnership $ 50,000 $ K) Ability Building Center $ 45,000 $ Total Public Service Requests $379,708 PUBLIC SERVICE REQUESTS CAN TOTAL LESS THAN $97,800, BUT THEY CANNOT EXCEED $97,800. Barrier Removal Requests/Acquisition/Rehab/ Economic Development. L) City of Rochester $ 75,000 $ (Park Barrier Removal) M) We Can House $ 4,000 $ (Ramp at House II) N) Rochester Area Family Y $ 20,000 $ O) SEMCIL $ 50,000 $ P) MN DNR $ 34,688 $ Q) Zumbro Mental Health Center $ 8,600 $ R) City/Co Planning Dept(Housing Div) $240,000 $ (Rental Rehab Program) S) Habitat for Humanity $ 40,000 $ T) RAEDI $100,000 $ Total Barrier Removal Requests/ Acquisition/Rehab/Economic Devel $572,288 TOTAL RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATION INCLUDING PUBLIC SERVICE SHOULD NOT EXCEED $397,000 TOTAL RECOMMENDED AMOUNT $ A-/ August 199E 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROPOSAL PROJECT SUMMARY PEOPLE FIRST OF OLMSTED.COUNTY is an organization of adults who have developmental disabilities, ws,e are united in increasing their independence, and becoming valued citizens in Rochester. These individuals with disabilities are an inspiration to others, as they concentrate on developing their abilities, instead of seeing their disabilities as barriers to independence. ..-c Olmsted County has been integrally involved in the development and support u: this organization. The Adult Services Coordinator serves as an advisor for this gro-_ Through "People First", members work on issues related to incr=.i_ng their independence. These issues include: - development of self-confidence - identification of personal strengths - enhancement of communication skills • - sharing concerns/problems and developing strategies to address these needs. Additionally, members seek ways to help friends and volunteer to help other people in the community. Members improve their organizational and communication skills by publishing a bi- monthly newsletter. In addition to supporting the People First organization, Arc Olmsted assists individuals with disabilities in receiving the support they need to live successfully in the community, through the Citizen Advocacy Program. Through this program, community members are matched 'with individuals with developmental disabilities to develop friendships and provide support. The volunteers provide transportation and companionship to recreational and social events, as well as support these individuals as participants in church activities and social clubs. These volunteers also assist individuals in making good decisions affecting their daily living needs, and identify problems the individual may be experiencing. When these problems are identified in their initial stages, solutions are more easily developed. This natural support from community members makes individuals less dependent on government support. The need for additional Citizen Advocate volunteers is great, • especially as the federal and state governments limit their financial support for programs to address the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. Individuals with, disabilities often contact Arc Olmsted and • request support in dealing with problems that have arisen, or express loneliness Iand a desire for friendship. County casemaragers and teachers often make referrals for people on their caseloads who are in need of .friendship .or support that social service and educational programs are unable to provide. Family members also make referrals hoping to increase the safety and protection of their relatives who have disabilities. Arc's Adult Service Coordinator.recruits, trains and supports community members who volunteer to serve as Citizen Advocates for individuals with disabilities. Additionally, this person provides support to individuals with disabilities who are in need, and works with them to ensure that they are receiving support from community programs to increase their ability to live and work as independently as possible. with support from volunteers, and from People First, many people with developmental disabilities are active in the community by working, volunteering, and contributing as members of community, civic, and religious organizations. AGENCY INFORMATION Arc Olmsted County is a non-profit volunteer organization devoted to improving the quality of life for people with developmental . disabilities. It was incorporated in 1955 and,is affiliated with Arc Minnesota and The Arc/National. Arc Olmsted County provides advocacy and support for individuals with developmental disabilities and their. families. Additionally, the agency provides information and referrals, assists governmental and private agencies in developing and monitoring services, and works to.increase public awareness about developmental disabilities. Arc Olmsted County has approximately 350 memberships which represent over 700 people. 47% of the members are parents or relatives of persons with developmental disabilities, 5% are self -advocates, 30% are professionals in the field of developmental disabilities, and 18% are interested community members. over one-half of our members are active in at least one volunteer area of the organization. Arc Olmsted County is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors comprised of parents, representatives of medical community, business community, and social service agencies, as well as two self -advocate from the People First Program and a representative' from the Citizen Advocacy Program. PROGRAM REQUEST -- Arc Olmsted County is requesting $16,000 to continue providing services to adults with developmental disabilities: Arc relies heavily on funding from the Community Development Block Grant to • support the employment of the Adult Services Coordinator who coordinates the following services. -2- • - Serve as an advisor and offer technical assistance and educational support to "People First" so members can increase their independence and become greater contributors to the Rochester community. - Assist "People First" members and other individuals with developmental disabilities with integration into community activities that will enhance their development, such as work and volunteer experiences. Assist individuals in developing effective support networks with each other, and with community volunteers through the Citizen Advocacy Program. Recruit, train and support additional community volunteers through the Citizen Advocacy Program. Continue to work with social service agencies and the school district to ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities are informed about services that can enhance their lives, increase their independence, and become productive members of the Rochester community. Community Development Block Grant funds have allowed Arc Olmsted • to develop the "People First" and Citizen Advocacy programs. Arc is dependent upon receiving Community Development Block Grant Funds to provide the staff support needed to continue these programs which have proved effective in integrating people with disabilities into the community as contributing members of society, through their employment, payment of taxes and service as volunteers. -3- • Arc Olmsted County Salaries Taxes/Benefits Supplies Communications Phone, Postage Occupancy Printing, Publications Travel Conference Program,Expense Totals: BUDGET SUMMARY 1996 CDBG Other Request Sources $14,500.00 $14,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 -0- 250.00. -0- 750.00 $16,000.00 1,775.00 750.00 500.00 350.00 500.00 $20,875.00 Total Budget $29,000.00 3,000.00 250.00 750.00 1,775.00 750.00 500.00 350.00 500.00 $36,875.00 903 West Center Street, Rochester, Minnesota 55902. Telephone (507) 287-2032 • • Az 717 Third Avenue Southeast Rochester, Minnesota 55904 507.288.7195 Fax 288.4522 Ms. Theresa Fogarty CDBG Administrator Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department Housing Division 2116 Campus Drive S.E., Suite 10 Rochester, MN 55904 14 August 1995 Dear Ms. Fogarty, Enclosed please find the application for Bear Creek Services for the 1996 Community Development Block Grant Program. The support provided by past grants has facilitated our efforts to provide quality community living to city residents with disabilities, as well as increasing employment opportunities. we sincerely appreciate the support and involvement of Rochester in the special needs of our citizens with developmental disabilities. • If you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. • Kind Regards, Frank J. Anderson Jr. Executi a Director aA United Way Agency 4 Through our programs, staff interact with clients, teaching skills, assisting with personal needs, accompanying on outings, talking and listening. Bear Creek Services provides in -home support to children with disabilities, as well as individuals with traumatic, brain injury. The volunteer program offers clients an opportunity to develop one-to-one relationships and to share new experiences with volunteers. Bear Creek Services has met all financial obligations without default and continues to maintain a secure financial base. Bear Creek Services has a record of solid financial standing in the Rochester community. This corporation is nonprofit and relies on reimbursement for services and donations for income. Funding from these sources covers our current operating expenses, but does not provide cash reserves for the purchase of capitalized equipment or the start up of new programs. Bear Creek Services has managed its programs capably, reporting to government entitites, developing procedures to implement policies, and using volunteers to ease fiscal burdens. The community -based services provided by Bear Creek Services not only enhances opportunities for recipients, but also provides the community at large 'a cost-effective service system, with reimbursement rates from tax dollars approximately half of the cost of services in a state -operated institution. Bear Creek Services is governed by a volunteer Board of • Directors, representative of the community at large. The Board has continually provided active direction to all our projects. Members of board reside in Rochester and the surrounding area, and many are parents of a child with developmental disabilities. Eight.5 House, a four person Waivered Service Home, provides housing and support services for four senior Rochester residents with developmental disabilites. The house currently does not have a vehicle to use for client programs and activities. The demand for this project is on -going, as the clients will need the services for a.lifetime. The provision of adequate and available transportation is a key component of our ability to provide community integration and opportunities. Bear Creek Services is seeking a Community Development Block Grant in the amount of $20,000 to purchase an appropriate vehicle for Eight.5 House. The vehicle must be capable of accommodating individuals with age -related limitations. The purchase of the vehicle will allow the residents to continue their involvement and contributions to the Rochester community. 0 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION Bear Creek Services, Inc., is requesting funds through the City of Rochester Community Development Block Grant program for the purchase of a mini -van, to provide for the transportation requirements of four senior citizens with developmental disabilities and physical restrictions. Bear Creek Services, Inc., was formed by Rochester citizens as Olmsted ARC Homes in 1975 to provide residential and support services to persons with developmental disabilities or mental retardation. Support and donations from parents, businesses, and community service groups enabled us to open the first group home in Rochester in 1976. This home still serves six adults with menatal retardation. During the next five years, Bear Creek Services opened three more homes, each serving six adults. Financing for these . homes was obtained from donations, gifts -in -kind, Community Development Block Grants, and conventional bank mortgages. In January of 1995, Bear Creek Services implemented a major agency transition, to enable us to continue to provide community residences for aging residents of Rochester with developmental disabilities. A new, Class B twin-plex was completed, funded by a HUD 811 grant, which enabled three clients to return the our community from state institutions. Two six -bed Intermediate Care Facilities were decertified, and three smaller cost-effective, integrated Waivered Service sites were developed. Bear Creek Services, Inc., currently provides -residential services for 41 clients, in three Intermediate Care Facilities serving six clients each, and seven Waivered Service Homes serving from two to four clients each. The continued development of community -based. residential services has provided Rochester residents with disabilities the opportunity to participate fully in our community. The development also provides employment opportunities in Rochester, currently providing more than 120 jobs for Rochester residents. Bear Creek Services has a solid reputation for providing quality services to its clients and for its good business relationships in the community. 1�1 4-3 Child Care Resource & Referral, Inc. 2116 Campus Drive SE • Rochester, Minnesota 55904 • 507-287.2020 • 1-800-462-1660 • FAX 507-287.2411 August 14, 1995 Rochester City Council City Hall Rochester, MN 55902 Dear Council Members: Attached you will find a request for Community Development. Block Grant funds for 1996. Child Care Resource and Referral, Inc. has received funding for child care subsidies in the past and the community and families have benefitted greatly from your support. We hope to see this continue. Our agency is a multi -program, private non-profit agency with the mission to ensure positive • beginnings for all children and families through community partnerships. We provide a wide variety of programs and services, many for low and moderate income families. C1 The Community Development Block Grant funds are part of the basic sliding fee child care assistance program which continues to have a waiting list of families needing assistance to work or go to school and become self-sufficient. We seek your continued support for this program and want to emphasize the direct impact this program has on the economic vitality of our community. We appreciate your thorough consideration of this proposal and look forward to presenting to you at the August 21, 1995 public hearing. If you have any questions, we would welcome your call, 287-2020. Sincerely, Tutti Sherlock Executive Director �i�� A community agency serving children, parents, child care professionals and employers. Equal Opportunity EmployerlConlraclor PROPOSAL FOR 19% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDS Submitted by Child Care Resource & Referral, Inc. CONTACT PERSON: Shawn Kishel at 287-2020 PROPOSAL: CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES Please consider a request for $80,000 to fund a portion of the Child Care Assistance Program. This represents about 6% of our projected 1996 basic sliding fee program and an increase in our request from the past four years. Approximately 9% of the allocacted funds, $7,200, would be used for administration of the program and the remainder, $72,800, for direct child care subsidies. The average cost of child care is $300 per child per month. Past allocations have been 1987 - $28,000 1992 - $27,886 1988 - $30,400 1993 - $37,000 1989 - $22,200 1994 - $36,000 1990 - $14,583 1995 - $36,400 1991 - $29,500 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: This program supports family self-sufficiency by providing child care assistance for income eligible families to enable them to work or acquire an education to become employed... • Income eligibility is determined by Minnesota Department of Human Services and based on the State Median Income of $46,518. For example, a family of four with an income of $26,984 or less would be eligible for the program (60% of the state median income). A parent co -payment sliding fee schedule is used based on income and family size. For a family of four with an income level of $19,536, the parent pays $22 of the child care cost each month. If the parent earns $26,988, the parent co -payment is $169 a month. CLIENT POPULATION: All clients for whom these funds are requested are working poor, non -AFDC families seeking to be financially stable. Past recipients have been able to continue employment or attend school. Clients have been very responsive. and appreciative of having the opportunity to become or remain self sufficient. This population has worked to become self-sufficient. Some have participated in the STRIDE program. As their employment provides financial stability and their AFDC case is closed, one year of Transition child care is available. = The intent of legislation was to continue funding child care through the basic sliding fee, until a family's income was over 75% of the State Median Income. If adequate funding is not available, they may be put on a waiting list of two to three years. r_7 LJ ,PROGRAM NEED: According to the 1990 census, in Olmsted County 72% of women with children under the age of six and 84% of women with children between six and 17 are in the labor force. This was the fastest growing group in Olmsted County's labor force and demonstrates the need for significant numbers of children needing child care. We currently are not able to add new clients to our program. Child care funding has not kept pace with the cost of child care. Therefore, fewer families are able to receive assistance because the per child cost has increased. Even families who have had their AFDC cases closed due to work and have been on Transition child care for one year, will not be able to continue and may have to return to AFDC to access child care subsidies. Our current waiting list is 275 families and has remainded between 250 and 300 over the last several years. Valuing Families: The High Cost of Waiting for Child Care Sliding Fee Assistance, A Study of Families on the Child Care Sliding Fee Waiting List in Hennepin County, Minnesota was completed and published in 1995, funded by a grant from the Minneapolis Foundation and provids us with some significant data which follows. The estimated direct -service, taxpayer costs of supporting families on AFDC, Food Stamps and Medical Assistance is $595 more per month per family than assisting families through the Child Care Sliding Fee Program. The long term cost of supporting families with welfare also has serious ramifications. Once families receive funding through the Child Car Sliding Fee Program, they continue to improve their economic standing as they move from part-time to full-time work or pursue training to qualify for higher -paying jobs. As a result, average gross annual income increases from $15,400 for families on the waiting list to $19,500 for families receiving child care assistance. Without child care subsidies, one quarter of the families on the waiting list have turned to AFDC for economic survival and one-half rely on food stamps and Medical Assistance. These statistics are comparable to the percentages we have have recieved from similar surveys completed by child care assistance waiting list clients. Child Care assistance: Supports families and employment Provides an opportunity for quality care for children Offers a sound investment for taxpayers Although employers depend on low wage jobs to succeed in their businesses, workers who earn this wage and have children, cannot afford child care. 0 No Room for Child Care. Costs in Budget of Typical Family on the Waiting List Monthly budget of $1,521 (includes food stamps and earned income tax credit) for working single parent with children ages 4 and 7f1). Remaining Child Care Costs Transportation,(21 using Housing/ 3-year-old car Utilities'6) 19°k(5289/mo.) 42%(5639/m Health Care Using Child care costsm MinnesotaCare'?) - 2% (527/mo.) 42% (5643/mo.) Food'4) 17.5% (5266/mo.) - - Clothing and Misc. AV Monthly co-ppayment(s) (household and C11711d 3% (552/'coo.) if pparent personal supplies, etc.)(4) 2% t531 imo. ��� were receiving cftild 0% (5155/mo.) FICA"� care sliding fee 7.3% ($114/mo.) Notes (Data compiled by Children's Defense Fund MN 1993): 1. Average income of family on the waiting list in Hennepin County, including 5193/month for food stamps and 870/month for tax credits minus state and federal taxes due. 2. Cost of running a 3-year-old car 12,000 miles/year; from MN Department of Transportation, 1993. 3. Presumes family on MirmesotaCare; higher if parent is covered through employer and must pay share of cost, 1993. 4. From MN Department of Human Services Market Basket Evaluation of AFDC Standard of Need, 1991. 5. Sodal Security; pmumes no income tax withholding. 6. Two -bedroom apartment with utilities and phone; from US. Department of Housing and Urban Development and US. West, 1993. 7. Average cost of family child care for preschool and school age care, 1994. 8: Monthly Child Care Sliding Fee copayment for family of three, 1994. 5591 of total child care costs are subsidized. • CONSEQUENCE OF NOT FUNDING: The goal of this program is to allow more working poor to become self-sufficient tax payers and productive members of the community. * By not funding the program we risk shifting working poor from the work force to unemployment or welfare. * Those who continue working may not be able to work at their capacity without assistance, which compromises our economic development potential by under -utilizing the work force. Additional information from Valuing Families: The High Cost of Waiting report: Many families have incurred overwhelming debt as a result of their child care expenses. Over 80 percent of families on the waiting list pay for care, and of these families, 71 percent have experienced significant levels of debtor filed for bankruptcy. The majority of families on the waiting list continue to work while waiting for Child Care Sliding Fee, but they do so at great expense to the security of their family. 3 • Many children on the waiting list are deprived of consistent, stable care and an appropriate early childhood education. This may result in the inability to form strong, healthy relationships, which are the foundation needed for success in school and life. • Over one-third of parents were concerned about quality issues with their children's provider such as lack of appropriate programming, not enough attention paid to their child and unsafe or unclean environments. Over one-third of parents changed child care providers three or more times while on the waiting list. USE OF 1995 CDBG FUNDS: Eighteen children in 8 families have received financial assistance with CDBG funds between March and August. The combined annual income (tax -base) is $157,299. Community Development Block Grant funded about 3.7% of the total basic sliding fee direct child care assistance and 2% of the case management. BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY: * Local support demonstrates a cooperative effort in serving the child care assistance needs in our community * Federal and state dollars have been reallocated based on local support which includes the Community Development Block Grant public Service funds, United Way, and additional county allocations, beyond the required match. . * Working families: Contribute tax dollars to the community Gain important job experience Help sustain economic development in the city * Over 181 different employers in our community employ 385 current child care subsidy clients. In addition, the children of these families have the opportunity to receive professional, nurturing child care that will impact their development, into productive adults. It is well documented in sociological studies that we can improve our community's future by focusing on the nutritional, social and intellectual development of low-income children. Child care is an important place for this development to occur. 0 Community Youth Mentorship Program EuGens Jones. Executive Director Lisa Greene. Administrative Assistant Ric Dwyer, Academic Coordinator • Fredrick Moore, Recreation Coordinator Susy Olsen, Mentorship Coordinator Todd Looney, Leadership Coordinator 334 16th Street SE, #11 ♦ Rochester, MN 55904 (507) 287.2401 or 287-1554 Grant Application to: Theresa Fogarty, CDBG Administrator Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department Housing Division 2116 Campus Drive SE, Suite 10 Rochester, NLN 55904 August 10, 1995 • Submitted by: Community Youth Mentorship Program 334 16th St: SE, #11 Rochester, MN 55904 E Community Youth Mentorship Program EuGene Jones, Executive Director Lisa Greene, Administrative Assistant Ric Dwyer, Academic Coordinator Fredrick Moore. Recreation Coordinator Susy Olsen. Mentorship Coordinator Todd Looney, Leadership Coordinator 334 16th Street SE, #11 ♦ Rochester, MN 55904 (507) 287-2401 or 287-1554 PROGRAM DETAILS The Community Youth Mentorship Prograrn(CYMP) mission is to establish a proactive, community -based, cross-cultural enrichment program for youth ages 10 to 17 with individualized academic, career, recreational, and social experiences aimed at empowering each youth to engage in positive relationships and behaviors both now and in the future. The Mentorship Program, with the help of the recreation/leadership and academic components, provides opportunities for youth to develop their strengths through encouragement and role modeling of an adult friend. Through Personal Mentoring, a youth and an adult can share like interests and investigate the talents and abilities of the youth. The youth and mentor spend one-on-one time together doing activities they both enjoy. Group Mentorship matches are set-up according to a specific mutual interest of an - adult and a group of youth. Career Mentoring allows a youth to explore aspects of employment and different career opportunities. The Recreation/Leadership component of CYMP is designed to teach philosophies and concepts that will. instill self-discipline, self-esteem, and character by teaching proper recreation/leadership skills, lifeskills, and guidelines. Methods that will develop physical • maturity, enhance leadership qualities, and promote responsibility which will benefit both the youth and the Rochester community are emphasized. The summer recreation program is designed for economically disadvantaged youth and/or youth who are not currently being served by existing programs. Youth are offered daily sporting, recreational, and arts and crafts activities as well as monthly field trips. Throughout the school year, CYMP youth are. incorporated into existing youth activities and programs through our youth scholarships. Listen for Change is a group of youth, governed by youth, organizing activities for youth. Listen for Change has a task -oriented theme with leadership qualities interested in enhancing the Rochester community. Youth are given an opportunity to express their point of view in a positive, constructive manner. The Academic component offers students the opportunity to increase their basic skills in school, become computer literate, and participate in existing educational activities. The on -going class provides individualized tutoring in mathematics, grammar, reading, physical science, algebra, and keyboarding. Various software modules offer a variety of computer literacy and educational opportunities. Community Youth Mentorship Program EuGene Jones, Executive Director Lisa Greene, Administrative Assistant Ric Dwyer, Academic Coordinator Fredrick Moore, Recreation Coordinator Susy Olsen, Mentorship Coordinator Todd Looney, Leadership Coordinator 334 16th Street SE, *11 ♦ Rochester, MN 55904 (507) 287-2401 or 287-1554 Extensive use of bilinguals throughout the various programs is one unique aspect of CYWT . Many existing programs are not used due to the lack of interpreting ability by those. programs. Currently, four different language partners are used to assist mentors and program administrators in reaching youth and working with their families. While the programs have largely stayed in tact this past year, changes have been occurring within CYMp. A change at the Executive Director level has brought a renewed focus on mentorship, which is the core of CYW. Other changes have included better transportation for youth to the summer sites and new partnerships with existing community organizations. More changes will be discussed and addressed in the next year as the CYM]? continues to seek to improve the delivery and quality of services to youth. Many community issues have made headlines in the past year but none have received the attention that racial problems and youth have. As our community becomes more and more racially diverse, these problems will only continue to grow. At the heart of the problem is what and how our youth have been taught to get along with other cultures. CYW mixes youth of various cultures in a variety of settings giving them the chance to interact and get to know each other. With positive adult mentoring and making existing programs available to all youth, regardless of heritage or culture, where all cultures can interact, these problems can be addressed and, hopefully, cured. FUNDS REQUESTED CYW is requesting $72,000 of Community Development Block Grant monies. This would be allocated towards the Executive Director's salary and taxes, Mentorship Coordinator's salary and taxes, and the Administrative Assistant's salary and taxes. The changes over the last year have shown how important these positions are in order to execute the CYW mission. It is imperative to the program that next year's funding for these positions be in place as soon as possible. In addition, the current Executive Director is on an interim basis. A new full-time Executive Director will need to be hired. A current budget has been attached. The 1996 budget has not been set. 0 b m y O;a OI0wl OIN wfml�< <tilt' C 0i0 O.dl S N,C IO OIOIm:C1+ 9.,3 m13 ml d v 'IS elc c:e n yl 4iIDOiC5rmIo Qjrim gq Dr 70l till d S N,.F F NIC O Yr� O O ,:.6 mIO O l d :am d Igylc mlc °Ia 3lmtn �I �'. "�Il�lc ~rn' 03 lu d a 31 c '2: o 3I S m %d " 3141 Ia I�I !mlo!=1=la 'dlc. O cIN IA dID o mI31 NI7 g z I do a i2lm rc I Isi dIDIc 0 1 a gId'O ul lmlc ISlw H opi 't'v �Ir d_ mlw` ImI ;a d o< IT! =1 I�►n S (D 3 d ? O ylrol I eIF m;ol I rc m d i"I mlm wig 0 d of !QI �' o dla a O O (D clmv g m 2 mom, D Old dl9 aol to ld o'Iw o I a H mI oIa m m o '3 7s'oldl� a nlc !. I >Id a.c lwld w wiIF �.,,� of mwfD a N o 3 F ml •e 3l0 N Rr= wla o I+ � a 3! II`dI m O.- .dl�lwl oim �� :oi I� � •`! im IO', S aei It' ay .dI Cl El 01 I I I in j O41 I O L. I m I 'ml I N ZIP =. rI ! I Ix ! x(l) 81 I m CD f CD c, -p N . N (D . (D ICI I I A I� l 1 I ' I I I► I I I I I I 'um I� O UUI�Di4N 11>I GI G Hi UIUI OI - A', OI O�OI OINIOI IO V Or N•O,Omil aitrltJ U'2 a IO O' TIOI0o1GI IOIO NI OI OIO imI OIOIOIU OI OI OISi OI OIO OI GI OI OIOIGIOIG!O•m•Ol wI wISI U III I I ! ! I NIm INI I NN 1- IU I i ,AIwN I I► NI N, I I i+I I I I A' 1 I iN'O�!Ipi !rl IUIw mI r wlONI!m T S OUI O C. IOIUIOlmI NI lOI O'OIO 040 O OIN 'O.O O10'OIS O108I UIO O S'IJT OIW OI m!OrwIw OIL U I I N pY. 1 I+INI I+ UI r A. wIN N N i- IA Ile 'NI mI mlm:w wrw U O S qm U:GI[OI U •0101 [CI+ O110101 AI N NI O1 UIU Or0:010 .UIU Or O O pIITI OI : O'OO -Oi0 O.O.OI OI OI OI OIN OIG S:O O JIU.NIO NIA O U O'G•OIm Olwlwl0 I ,ImI U I I I i I I I I. ( WIN 3 OI I U!G m UI+IA' p� G r G N Irr IUIU N OI Oi OIN N SIS O Nj+1 51010 OI VII WiNi OIN AIWW S 0 O10 0 O 01N1 IOlmlO OIOIO 01010 G O10'Or0!OI O G N. OIGIO;m O w W O ID J—;8iti U UO 0 O OSSNSO Sq1tWI I I C UIG I IUI IUIUi O'UIGIOIITIO NIOIOINI SIca OBI O V OI NISIO Ar>iwlw O d 0 U IO!O 8Ip1M,N1A• W O OINI 0101010 O'. O.OISIOrU �O!O O OI OI 0Z IG1010 O G Or GI O'.+ OIwIw O I I IU ► IAIw O ON OI A li pp V A U U ml0e + O�'I N Ni0 GI GI STINT OI S: SO N O VI O)I N►NIA Sri+O 41 O W OOIUIOIONI :OIO O O OOIO OOG O!O OI OS GIOIO OI GIOIGr W w W I ( I ri I+ II 1 ► , I' I' ► ► I! I :IIII I I I Wy N I AI ( O D U Aw O g NI O ipjw NI NIN N:+ 10 JN N. AI>iw w O T Ol U O UIm OIWIOIO WI+ N G O O U ImI U OIOIOI01010 GI OI OI OI O:S SI SSLG S OIO•0408, +!O w w O I P U I i !+INitmN rIN ► + I .I i0 '. i AIw I' Ii i I I m Nlw IITTIw I+T N SiS 10 S O;NIO 1 VIU SiG10 N' G OlipwillW S OI OOrSIOIOI, OO O O pp.0 O O O'O O OIO GPIO O GIS mI O S N W N O Ol+ qq N N O S O N S O P qq Om O W W qp G OOO I .Op O O tNll O _ A JJ I I I I G W N gZ 0 pmp�� 0 IITT 0 G 0 m OI U O O N U 0 O10 G u O Oi0 U UI 0 O10 O' IM IOIOIOIOrO •' IOiO SSIS NIS OIOIPO{NTi p�.. OImO W W O d 1 1 I I I A J ! 1 1 1 i wIlO N NINI+► GIw G 3 IITT Io O OlI 0I0 N OI N' O O!OIOIOVOIC + N +I O O m S 'O 01010 IOI SIO{SISIG'SIO 01. V!OIIN OIUrO•NI O p'ii UIm m!p w V w V S a oUVV I:IO0O)I11I00O) I. GAUIrT �Ai !OII '. 000 'w pI0I0 ,1 I SNi I ►+ :S+ o om UN1IN0O1.' 0O O O OOO O OI000 O w.' U O O:1 OOw I0 . is v c: W i o LI U LJ ll LI � L:aS FAMILY SERVICES INC. 2116 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E., SUITE 22 .ROCHESTER, MN 55904 (507)287-2300 FAX: (507) 287-2491 August 14, 1995 Theresa Fogarty, CDBG Administrator Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department Housing Division 2116 Campus Drive SE, Suite 10 Rochester, MN 55904 Re: 1996 CDBG Request BOARD OF DIRECTORS AMY VMS. PRESIDENT TOE CHASE KEITH ANDERSON PAULA SULLIVAN ANN DAVENPORT SR. IUDI ANGST ANN HUITDN TOHN O'NEIL. DONNA SCFIN®ER WENDY SHANNON BILL HEDRICK B01 HAYFORD USA BEEN-SINZ E%ECUTIVE DIRECTOR: RANDALL W. BACIDAAN Dear Theresa: • Enclosed please find our 1996 CDBG request. We appreciate the continued support of the City Council as we provide services to youth and families. Enclosed is our grant narrative, the budget, and our 1994 IRS form 990 as requested. Please let me ]mow if you need additional information. We plan to be present at the first hearing on August 21st. Sincerely, Randall W. Bachman Executive Director u. Ate 14 OLt,15TED CO INITI HOUs'td & RE7- VE LOPi;'BrT RL'? ;fi A United Way Agency Equal Employment Oppormniry Employer/Af finmative Action OMNIA FAMILY SERVICES REQUEST FOR 1996 CDBG FUNDING AUGUST, 1995 Summary of Pr000sa_L Omnia is requesting a total of $18,558 from the Community Development Block Grant. Of this amount, $10,000 is for the purchase of a used van, and $8,558 is for the purchase of computers and office equipment. Background of Agency- Omnia Family Services is a private, non-profit residential and family support program serving at -risk youth ages 11-19 and their families since 1987. Our mission is to help even the most difficult youth and families become healthy, productive members of society through the provision of quality community -based care. We provide a variety of therapeutic, recreational, and educational programs to help youth become good citizens. Our guiding philosophy of Unconditional Care means that we make a commitment to the youth and family to assure that their needs are met locally, and if they can't be served in the community, that we make an effort to meet their needs when they return. We also work with the youth and family to help develop their own sense of responsibility to themselves, their families, and their community. This past year we have continued the shift from our group residential care to • providing child placement prevention and family reunification services. We continue to operate a 10-bed group home at 1025 Mayowood Rd SW. We have initiated a foster care program for difficult to place adolescents. We are also part of the Children's Mental Health Collaborative that provides services to seriously emotionally disturbed children. This collaboration is a joint project among Olmsted County, Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center, Family Service Rochester, and ourselves. We continue to provide Social Work services to area schools, and a Truancy Prevention Program.. Staff have received training in Cognitive Skills, a program designed to intervene with youth who are at risk of becoming delinquent. We also provide intensive in -home &niily therapy and family support services for families with youth at risk of placement. In collaboration with the Rochester Y's LINK program, we continue to provide `Life Skills training and Case Management services to older adolescents to help them make a successful transition to adulthood. Finally, we provide therapeutic recreational activities for youth and families. 0 • Relevance to the Goals of the .DB : The goals of the CDBG are to provide assistance to low income persons, to remove slum or blight, and provide economic development. The clients in our residential programs are by definition homeless, and the majority of them come from low-income households. The clients in our family and community support programs are predominately low income, and many are from single parent households. We also see an increase in referrals of minorities and families of color. 1. Van: The agency's IS passenger club van will likely need replacement in the next year. We have "made do" with replacing the motor this year, and have made a number of repairs to keep it on the road. While it has served us well, we anticipate its demise in the near future. We also have another van that may need replacement as well. We have found it is most cost-effective to buy used but serviceable vans that we can use for in -town travel and road trips as opposed to paying staff mileage or purchasing new vehicles. We have incrementally added computers as we can afford them over the years. Our goal is to help our family workers and case • managers become more productive through access to computers. The automation of word processing and data bases will help them become more efficient and productive and will also help the agency evaluate the effectiveness of our services. This year we are requesting two additional computers and printers as well as money for accounting and word processing software upgrades. Our request also includes money for related office equipment --a shredder and whiteboards. Easels, whiteboards and AN equipment will also be used with families and with treatment and educational groups. 0 BUDGET I. Used Van.......................................... M.10,000 11. Computers Two computer with printers........... 5,500 New software and upgrades.......... 1,200 III. Office Equipment Paper Shredder .............................. 400 Whiteboard and easel ....................." 200 2 Whiteboards for walls .................. 408 Audio -Visual equipment .................. 750 GRAND TOTAL .......... $18,558 • is CJ 14-7 The City of Rochester 1996 • Community Development Block Grant Program Request The Rochester Off -Campus Alternative School Program Funding Request Submitted By The Southeastern Minnesota Private Industry Council, Inc. Rochester Off -Campus Alternative School Attu: Richard Roy - Youth Programs Director Southeastern Minnesota Private Industry Council, Inc. 300 11th Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 (507) 252-2490 FAX (507) 252-2495 0 City of Rochester C:DBQ 1996 Request for Proposal ROCHESTER-OFF CAMPUS ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL Project Summary The Rochester Off -Campus (ROC) Alternative School project is a year-round program providing academic, life and work skills development to youth at -risk of further delinquent activities. These students are facing educational failure due to the following delinquent activities: school truancy, dropout, suspension or expulsion, lack of academic achievement, justice system involvement and chemical issues. The ROC's mission is to provide a "School -To -Work" Transition program for youth to develop the skills necessary to become life-long learners, making successful transitions into adulthood and the work place. The project provides a rigorous and relevant schedule. for at -risk youth with a staffing: student ratio of L 10. The ROC will be starting its first full academic year this fall with 60 students. All of these students are defined as hard -to -serve by federal program standards. The following are the characteristics from the students enrolled this oast school session. Drop -outs - 27% Active "Corrections" Issues - 43% Out of School - 53%; Services Provided Minority & Women - 57% Special Education Needs (IEPs) - 33%; Public Assistance Recipients -41%. In addition to the basic value of getting these youth back into school, three key activities play a special role in helping maintain these youth's involvement in school. These are the mix of life, academic and work skills development. This balance not only provides direct learning, but also addresses the real world needs and interests of this group. The life skills portion consists of our "Group Connections" curriculum, which addresses stress management, • self-esteem and other issues - all directly related to dealing with life situation and is particularly applicable to the needs of our youth. The work skills portion consists of activities related to career decision making and job skill development, i.e. job skills training, job club and a student -operated -business. Youth learn about career options and how to apply for jobs, are given a forum to talk about work issues and have a chance to develop work skills in the student -operated -business. The academic skills portion focuses on graduation requirements and applying academic skills in the real world of work and life. Subject areas are integrated and topical to cutrert events, adding a sense of relevance needed to engage youth in self -motivated learning. These activities will set the foundation from which participants can pursue employment or post -secondary education, after eeming a high school diploma. Program Structure and Staffing The ROC is structured to provide a sense of community - a place where the youth feel welcome and take ownership in the program. Mornings begin with "Breakfast Forum", a chance for students to come to school, eat breakfast and meet with counselors to discuss and defuse any issues which might escalate during the day. Three hours of applied and multiple disciplinary academics provides the core course work required to_progress . toward high school graduation. After lunch, students participate in life and work skills group, art, heahh, and phy-ed, issues and choices classes. The afternoon classes are student -directed, with students identify topics and instructional mediums. The academic success achieved at the ROC, coupled with the special support and group work, enhances much needed socialization skills and self-esteem that are often crucial in the youth's progress. In addition, the attainment of a diploma is an especially importm credential for this "suspect" group. Given their barriers and background, a formal credential will help these youth in a especially meaningful way. A key to the success of the ROC is a vigorous schedule for at -risk youth, achieved through a staff: student ratio of 1:10. The combination of teachers and youth counselors provides the training and support needed. Also • unique to art educational setting is the ROC's daily management approach - a self directed work team. The ROC fully empowered staff work as a team to make decisions on student selection, class offerings and behavior management. The self -directed work team is supported by a youth program specialist - coordinating student and program documentation needs; and the PiC's youth program director providing administrative oversight. This formula for services provides a system which helps flag and identify problems and attendance issues before these •youth have gotten into more serious difficulty and has been cited as one of the keys to the success of the ROC with this group of high risk youth. Staff meet daily to discuss individual student progress and issues. Unmet Need Because of start-up costs and budget reductions at the federal level, many of our planned programming activities are going undeveloped. A computer lab for enhancing all leaming activities and shop equipment for developing a school -based business are just two areas of the program development still needed to fully address the learning styles and needs of this at -risk population. Our request for funding that can be categorized as Educational Equipment and Educational Support. The Educational Equipment are specific "tools" needed by staff to provide the relevant and rigorous learning environment which combines multiple disciplines and issues. The following is a breakdown of the Educational Equipment needs. Educational Equipment: - (amount requested $14,750) • 7 Multi -Media Computers and 3 Multi -Media Computer Kits ($11.250) The students and staff have requested that computers be available as a learning tool and as means to complete projects and assignments. Currently, we have three computers available - limiting the amount of access that a classroom of 10-12 students can have to the use of technology. Multi -media computers pose a real future cost savings as curriculum can be expanded and updated at a fraction of the cost of books and other materials. • Combination TVIVCR. Antenna and Overhead Projector ($1.000) The use of videos and video equipment has proven very successful in working with students who benefit from • alternative methods of instruction. Television offers a variety of topics from which teachers and counselors can record current events, news programs and other special topics and also presents a cost savings to curriculum materials and development. • Physical Education & Health Equipment (S500) The ROC has provided a limited amount of Phy-Ed and Health, areas which our students need much information and assistance in developing healthy life-styles. Although we have access to a city park, we have limited equipment for phy-ed activities. We also need some basic equipment and supplies for our health class. • Shop,Science Lab Equipment (S2.000) The hands-on nature of science experiments works very well with ROC students. Basic science lab equipment would facilitate learning. Basic tools are also needed for our school -based business, which is being planned by students and staff. Educational Support - (amount requested $19,400) • 1 S passenger Van ($10, 000) The cost of transportation plays a major role in our ability to utilize community resources. Field trips to various locations within Rochester help students realize the potential of our community and how they can benefit from and be a benefit to their community. Round ClassroomlLounge Tables. Bookcases and Furniture ($9.400) Team leaming and group process is emphasized in all classroom activities. Round tables would facilitate student interaction. Bookcases are needed to store classroom supplies and furniture is needed for the lounge. • The Total for our request is $34,150. If only partially funded, the funds would be used to purchase the educational equipment. These are the items which would have the greatest impact on the classroom and resolve the greatest number of unmet needs, as identified by students and staff. The CDBG fiords would provide a benefit beyond monetary measures. These funds would greatly strengthen the foundation of the ROC program, allowing us to continue to challenge a group of students eager to learn and contribute to their community. The following is a per it* breakdown of the budget request. THE R.O.C. DETAILED BUDGET REQUEST FOR CDBG FUNDING 1996 EDUCATIONAL EQUIPMENT 7 Multi -Media Computers 3 Multi -Media Kits 1 TVNCR Combo 1 Antenna Overhead Projector 1 Set of Softball Equipment 1 Set of Volleyball Equipment I Portable Basketball Pole I Heart Monitor 1 Stair Climber Shop Tools Science Lab Equipment EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT 1 15-Passenger Van 20 Round Tables 8 Bookcases 8 Pieces of Commercial Grade Furniture UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1.500 $10,500 250 750 400 400 300 300 300 300 100 100 100 too 200 200 50 50 100 100 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 10,000 10,000 250 5,000 20Q 1,600 350 2,800 GRAND TOTAL $34,150 Upon request - further information, a meeting with staff or a tour of our facility will be provided C MOP 0 1207 First Street SW Rochester, MN 55902 Thursday August 9, 3.995 Theresa Fogarty Rochester, Olmsted Planning Department Housing Div 21.1.6 Campus Drive S.E. Suite 1.0 Rochester, Minnesota, 55904 Dear Ms. Fogarty, Helena Selinger, Director (507) 288-7230 Enclosed is our Community Development Block Grant Proposal for the We -Can I and We -Can II homes for the coming year of 3.996. We have in the past received monies from CDBG and have been thankful and grateful in receiving monies for renovations and staffing. In 1.993 the We -Can Corporation had opened up a house for women who have severe and persistent mental illness, we provide 24 hour supervision and all of the amenities of a comfortable safe environment. Some of our residents will be in transition between the We -Can II House and community living through the program that we offer, such as teaching cooking, laundry, and homemaking skills, preparing job applications, and the use of public transportation, just to name a few. For the We -Can I and We -Can II to continue to provide this valuable service to the community and to its residents, we are asking the CDBG for financial support of $7.8,000,for programming and staffing. We are also in need of a ramp to be attached to the existing We -Can II house we had to turn down a number of requests for residency due to the lack of a ramp. We are asking an additional $4,000, to have a ADA approved ramp built. . Our primary goal for some of our residents is transition into the community, while some of our residents will have permanency with us. Those who will be residing at the We -Can I & II houses for long term care ranges from personal care which includes bathing, dressing, asistance with medications, daily exercise, and to -continually prompt these individuals to perform these skills so as not to lose them, to shopping skills, social skills, and scheduling and keeping medical appointments. ZUlat 9 e". r Za alaecc...ZUi-e. Da 7egctlwa 1207 First Street SW Rochester, MN 55902 IVox5£ Helena Selinger, Director (507) 288-7230 The We -Can I 6 II houses served the needs of 1.6 residents upon its opening. Since that time a total of 25 residents, some of them being original residents, have moved from the homes and have acquired jobs gotten married and raising a family within the community successfully. For most of our past residents we still provide these individuals with support and a WELCOME mat. We would be most appreciative of the CDBG for considering us for the Community Block Grant. Sincerely, Helena Selinger Director ZUkat % ean'� da aLa�cc...?(/c-ca�c Z�a,'%a9.cticc� n'' 7 PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota 1809 Third Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904 507-281-6116 • 1996 Funding Request City of Rochester Community Development Block Grant Program Date: August 10, 1995 Amount of Request: $26,000 Total Cost of Project: $60,000 Contact Person: John Flanders, Executive Director ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota, inc. is a private, non-profit 301 3(c) corporation founded in 1961 by parents and advocates for persons with developmental disabilities. The agency was one of the original nine pilot projects established by the Minnesota State Legislature to support individuals with developmental disabilities in their home communities. • PossAbilities currently supports 120 adults with developmental disabilities in the community. The agency has two primary service components. Work Services focuses on connecting people to the community through supported employment. Life Enrichment assists people who because of age, medical impairments, etc. do not desire to work at this time, but want to remain connected to the community in other ways. PossAbilities is committed to supporting individuals with disabilities in being active, participating members of the community. We believe that all persons: - have unique strengths, needs, and potential for lifelong growth - are valued, contributing members of society - are entitled to make choices for achieving their own potential in an environment which supports their personal growth and development. This commitment and belief has made the agency a leader in the development of community inclusive services. In 1992, through a Developmental Disabilities/McKnight Regional Problem Solving Grant, the agency established one of the first programs in Minnesota to specifically meet the needs to senior citizens who have developmental disabilities. In 1988, PossAbilities implemented an inclusive day care program for children with special needs. This program was planned collaboratively with Child Care Resource and Referral and the Rochester Public Schools. In 1993, PossAbilities and the Olmsted County Department of Social Services jointly initiated a project to include the principals of person -centered planning into the interdisciplinary planning process used by ALL provider agencies and the county. 9/11/95 1996 Funding Request Page 1 PossAbilities made an agency commitment in 1993 to assist people in being connected to -the community through employment. At this time, 18 individuals served by PossAbilities are employed in the community. PROJECT DESCRIPTION One essential ingredient to obtaining and maintaining employment in the community is reliable and timely transportation to and from work. For individuals with developmental disabilities, this can be a significant barrier to working in the community. Most individuals with developmental disabilities do not drive, so they are dependent upon public transportation or alternative means of transportation. Frequently, public and other means of transportation are not options for individuals with disabilities because it is either not available in the areas where they live or work, or it is structured in a way that they cannot use it independently. This issue is compounded if they need wheelchair accessible transportation. PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota is committed to assisting all of the 76 individuals we serve in our Work Services Department to become employed in the community. We currently have 18 individuals working in the community. Our goal is to have 45 individuals working in the community by the and of 1996 and all 76 employed by the end of 1998. With individuals becoming employed in the community, they need to get to multiple work sites throughout the community. They also need transportation at different times of the day because their hours of employment are dependent on the needs of the employer and not on standardized program times. PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota contracted for the use of two large school buses to , provide the majority of the transportation for individuals. This system was established to get individuals from home to a single site (PossAbilities) and home again at standard times. With individuals becoming employed in the community, this system no longer meets their needs. We have worked closely with the transit office of the Rochester Department of Public Services to maximize the utilization of public.transportation for individuals getting to and from work. Currently 32 individuals, with training and support, use public transportation (20 on City Bus and 12 on Zips). The other individuals (many of whom use wheelchairs) are dependent upon PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota for transportation in order to be employed in the community. In analyzing how to meet the needs of the individuals who an dependent on PossAbilities for their transportation, it became apparent that continued use of the large school buses is inefficient and ineffective. Utilizing large vehicles which carry only a few individuals per trip is inefficient. Having everyone ride a large vehicle all together would mean that many individuals would ride for more than one hour per trip, which is ineffective. The use of multiple vans to provide transportation meets both tests of efficiency and effectiveness. PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota is requesting one time capital funding to purchase two (2) additional lift vehicles that meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifications. The two vehicles, coupled with the Agency's current two vehicles and the utilization of public transportation, will allow us to revamp our transportation system to give it the flexibility and • wheelchair capacity necessary to meet individual's needs. This will allow all individuals served in the Work Services Department to have the opportunity to work in the community. 9/11/95 1996 Funding Request Page 2 Through the rearrangement of our transportation resources, we can fund the full depreciation and operating costs of the vehicles. We do not have the cash flow to fund the entire initial capita investment. •An essential part of this project (but not part of the funding request) is the training and support necessary to ensure that the utilization of public transportation is maximized. We are committed to providing the training individuals will need to ride public transportation to and from their place of employment._ For individuals who may not be able to use public transportation independently, but who could utilize it if staff support was available on the vehicle or at transfer locations, we will provide the necessary support. PossAbilities relocated the Work Services Department in May 1995. The new service sites were selected so that the utilization of public transportation is maximized. The goals of the project are: - Cost effective: ongoing operating costs do not exceed current operating costs. - Flexible: ability to transport individuals to job sites scattered throughout the community throughout the day. - Time: no individual will ride a vehicle for more than 30 minutes per one way trip. - Utilization of generic services: all individuals who can use public transportation to get to and from work will be supported in using public transportation. • PROJECT INCOME AND EXPENSE n 1. Total grant request: $26,000 2. Total cost of project: 560,000 (two ADA equipped lift vehicles at $30,000 per vehicle) 3. Sources of support: Source Secured Pen�dw Amount. PossAbilities of Southern MN X $30,000 Rochester Area Foundation X $4,000 Community Devel. Block Grant X $26,000 Total Cost of Project $60,000 9/11/95 1 1996 Funding Request Page 3 ROCHESTER / OLMSTED COMMUNITY HOUSING H -/O PARTNERSHIP, INC. • LJ • 2116 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER, MN 55904 TELEPHONE (507) 281-7396 FAX (507) 287-1945 August 14, 1995 Ms. Theresa Fogarty, CDBG Administrator Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department Housing Division 2116 Campus Drive SE, Suite 10 Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Ms. Fogarty, I am pleased to submit an application to the Community Development Block Grant Program on behalf of the Rochester/Olmsted Community Housing Partnership, Inc. The Housing Partnership is requesting $50,000 for downpayment/closing cost assistance for low-income households who receive a mortgage loan from one of the community lending products offered by local lenders. The CDBG funds will be. matched on nearly a 1 to 3 ratio by the Minnesota_ Housing Finance Agency. I have also included a copy instructions. Please let information or have questions. Sincerely, Suzanne J. Snyder Executive Director of our 1994 IRS 990 Form per your me know if you need additional ROCHESTER/OLMSTED COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, INC. DOWNPAYMENT/CLOSING COST ASSISTANCE PROGRAM August 1995 • Introduction The Rochester/Olmsted Community Housing Partnership requests $50,000 in Community. Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to continue a highly successful downpayment/closing cost program for low-income home buyers. These funds will leverage up to an additional $133,000 for this purpose from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ECHO Program, and make available $3. million in mortgage financing from local financial institutions and the Olmsted County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Sixty-two low-income households will benefit. organization The Rochester/Olmsted Community Housing Partnership is a non-profit 501 (c) (3) organization founded by community leaders in 1989. It is dedicated to insuring the availability of suitable and affordable housing for lower -income households in the City of Rochester and Olmsted County. Need One of the major stumbling blocks to homeownership is the lack of downpayment and closing costs.— It is difficult for lower -income • households to save money toward the purchase of a home when they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on housing. Mortgage bankers and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development define housing as affordable when the cost does not exceed 30% of gross income. The City's 1994 CHAS states that 76% of low-income renters spend in excess of 35% of their income on housing, some as much as 50%. Although these households manage their budget so that their rent is paid on time, they often do not have enough money for other basic needs much less the ability to build a savings account. Program Description Last fall the City allocated $20,000 in CDBG funds to the Housing Partnership to be used for downpayment assistance in conjunction with funds from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ECHO Program. For every local dollar provided the state supplies an additional $2.80. This program was created by MHFA as an incentive for local lenders to be creative and design flexible mortgage products for borrowers who could not qualify for traditional mortgage financing. These products are called "community lending products", and it is only with these mortgage loans the downpayment assistance is available. 0 The financial institutions use their own funds for these mortgages since they cannot be sold on the secondary market. To date four financial institutions have participated in community lending: * FBS Mortgage Corporation: Home Advantage Program *.Norwest Bank: Community Home Ownership Program (CHOP) * TCF Mortgage Corporation: HOPE * Knutson Mortgage Corporation: COMMUNITY HOMEBUYERS The start up of the program was in January 1995. During the first seven months of this year a total of 51 households have obtained mortgages through one of these products. Of these, 21 families with gross annual incomes not exceeding $26,000 (50% of median) have been eligible for the downpayment assistance. All of these lenders have committed to continuing these programs in 1996. But additional CDBG funds are needed to access the MHFA dollars for the downpayment/closing costs. In addition to the community lending products listed above, the Housing Partnership will also make the downpayment funds available to Rochester home buyers who receive financing from the proposed mortgage revenue bond program of the Olmsted County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. This assistance will enhance the HRA's ability to make loans to low-income households. . Conclusion The request for $50,000 is based on the success experienced during the first seven months of the program plus the inclusion of an additional mortgage product by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Based on 1995 figures, we project 100 mortgage loans will be made annually by the products identified in this proposal, and that over one-half of the households will be eligible for downpayment assistance. The CDBG funds are a small portion of the overall financing involved in these community lending products. However, they are pivotal to accessing the downpayment funds from the MHFA ECHO Program. Without the downpayment assistance many households will continue to find themselves blocked from home ownership regardless of the attractive mortgage programs designed for their needs. 2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM GRANT PROPOSAL from Ability Building Center, Inc 11 August 1995 PROJECT: "Get to Work: ABC Transportation Improvements" REQUEST Ability Building Center, Inc (ABC) is requesting $45,000 for the purposes of hiring a driver and purchasing a wheelchair - accessible mini -van to transport disabled persons to and from work sites in the Rochester community. ABC is a not -for -profit vocational rehabilitation work center serving persons with disabilities. We are continually challenged to provide realistic and appropriate work opportunities for over 500 people each year with varying degrees of limitations and skills. Our mission is to help these individuals achieve their highest level of vocational independence through work opportunities in a variety of settings and categories. While nearly half of those we serve work in ABC facilities, a growing number are working in community businesses throughout the city of Rochester. DESCRIPTION OF NEED For the hundreds of disabled workers placed through ABC into community jobs last year, there were often many barriers to overcome. As if attitudinal and physical barriers weren't enough, many also had to face transportation as a major issue in their search for employment. Even when all the other details fell into place, often transportation became the final barrier which. prevented a person from getting a job. Additionally, more and more individuals with severe disabilities are now being placed in community jobs as part of a crew or enclave. ABC supervisors drive company and private vehicles and accompany workers to these jobs along with whatever equipment might be required. In most cases, individuals use public transportation to get to the main ABC building in the morning, then proceed to specific worksites as a group. The number of individuals employed in this setting is growing steadily, and we anticipate that as many as 60-70 individuals will require transportation to these sites in the coming year. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The "Get to Work" project proposes to hire a staff person whose sole responsibility will be to transport people, crews and equipment to various worksites. This will significantly increase the flexibility of the entire staff to get people where they need to be, and will also free up the supervisors to assist Community Development Block Grant Proposal Ability Building Center, Inc it August 1995, page two individuals with actual work tasks and training. It is estimated that this driver position would cost approximately $20,000 for a one-year period ($7.25/hr X 2080 hours X 1.35% for taxes and benefits). The second portion of this proposal involves the purchase of a new mini -van with appropriate accessiblity equipment (lift or ramp).for our workers in wheelchairs and with ambulatory limitations. This vehicle would provide for even greater flexibility in transporting workers to sites and would reduce the need for ABC staff to use their personal vehicles for transporting. A new mini -van with accessibility equipment installed will cost approximately $25,000. SUMKRRY This project will help ABC to help disabled workers "get to work" on their community jobs. By adding to the available fleet of vehicles, there will be less stress on the existing vehicles and the schedule which is arranged for each. Fewer hours will be spent by staff trying to manipulate the traffic of vehicles, staff, and workers, and more community jobs may be pursued for the growing number of clients who need and want community work. The additional driver position will allow the existing staff to focus more directly on their training and supervisory responsibilities, thereby providing better quality programs for the disabled workers we serve. Once the driver position has been established, it is anticipated that the growth made possible by the position will help to fund it on an ongoing basis. 8-I 0 1] 0 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 14, 1995 TO: Theresa Fogerty FROM: Roy Sutherland SUBJECT: 1996 CDBG Funds The Park and Recreation Department is requesting $75,000 in 1996 CDBG funds to continue its effort to address the new ADA requirements. The goal of this project is to provide an accessible park/shelter in each quadrant of town. To date work has begun at Silver Lake and Cooke Park. The 1996 funds would be used to complete these two parks prior to work starting on Slatterly Park or Soldiers Field. There are a number of work projects that are required to make these park/shelters accessible. These include: -The renovation of the existing bathrooms to make them accessible. -Development of blacktop paths throughout the park. -The installation of accessible playground equipment. -Installation of accessible drinking fountains. -Removal of barriers adjacent to the shelters. -The installation of signage and parking. The use of CDBG funds for this project has allowed the Department to address a number of ADA issues in the park system. The completion of this project will insure that all citizens, regardless of their ability, will have equal access to the park system. interoffice . M E M O R A N D U M to: Roy Sutherland from: David K.McDonald subject: Community Development Block Grant Program date: August 3, 1995 The following is a summary of progress to date with the accessible park program sponsored through a grant by the Housing and Urban Development Department. We have completed all work at Silver Lake with the exception of replacing the playground equipment and the boat dock. We've solicited prices for the dock and should be in a position to make a decision shortly. Plans would be to install the dock with in-house labor. All work at Cooke Park is underway with the exception of replacing the • playground equipment. All equipment should be replaced because many components do not i comply with CPSC guidelines i.e. entrapment space, exit/entrance height and items no longer being acceptable. Before we embark on improvements to Slatterly and Soldiers Field, I think we should complete the work in Silver Lake and Cooke. I'm of the opinion that we can replace many of the component equipment with individual pieces although I don't think we'll save much in the way of money because of increased costs associated with installation and resilient material. I'd like to see you request $ 75,0007100,000 and indicate that the playgrounds would be replaced first before any other work was done. That way, we'd be able to bid out Slatterly and possibly Soldiers Field along with the other replacement equipment. U M • • • 1207 First Street SW Rochester, MN 55902 Thursday August 9, 1995 Theresa Fogarty Rochester, Ol Housing Dmsted Planning Department iv 211.6 Campus Drive S.E.. Suite 1.0 Rochester, Minnesota, 55904 Dear Ms. Fogarty, Helena Selinger, Dire (507) 28&7 Enclosed is our Community Development Block the We -Can I and We -Can II homes for the have in the Grant Proposal for and Pest received monies coming year of 1996. grateful in receivingfrom CDBG and have been thankWterl monies for renovations and staffing. In 3:993 the We -Can Corporation who have severe had opened tt hour supervisionaandparsistent mental P a house for women safe environment. Sorrell °f the amenitiesness, we provide 2•t between the of O17r residents of a comfortable Program thatWe-Can II House and will be in transition homemaking we offer community ity living throtr g skills, such as teaching vigh the Public transportationeparing job applications, pplications cooking, laundry, and just to name a few. and the use of For the We -Can I and valuable service to asking the CDBG for and staffing. We -Can II to continue to provide this the community and financial to its residents, we are to of $1A,000,for Programming We are also in need of a ramp We -Can II house we had to turn residency due to the lack of a $4,000, to have a ADA approved to be attached to the existing down a number of requests for ramp. We are asking an additional ramp built. Our primary goal for some of community, while our residents is tls. Those w some of Our residents will transition into the long term care who will be residing at the We-Canhave permanency with dress. ranges from personal care I S II houses for g. asistance with medications which includes continually prompt these doll bathing, as not to lose them individuals y exercise, and to schedulin ' to shopping is Perform these skills so g and keeping medical a skills, social skills, and appointments. ?f%lcat %eau t da %a9��s 4 Ift—e4jo 1207 First Street SW Rochester, MN 55902 Helena Selinger, Director (507) 288-72300 The We -Can I 6 II houses served the needs of 1.6 residents upon its opening. Since that time a total of 25 residents, some of them being original residents, have moved from the homes and have acquired jobs gotten married and raising a family within the community successfully. For most of our past residents we still provide these individuals with support and a WELCOME mat. We would be most appreciative of the CDBG.for considering its for the Community Block Grant. Sincerely, Helena Selinger Director • 7v" *7 e" t do a&we ...lot-e" Ds 7ageelse t: 6-3 AVVY The Rochester Area Family Y &09ocFirst Avenue Southwest Rhester, Minnesota 55902-3396 1] Telephone (507) 287.2260 FAX (507) 287.2499 Rochester Community Development Block Grant The Rochester Area Family Y is a Minnesota based non-profit organization which exists to...."provide for the Spiritual, Mental, and Physical well-being of the individual, family and community." To carry out this mission, the Board has adopted broad organizational goals which guide us in our daily decision making. Those goals are: 1. To Provide an environment and programming that is based on the Values found in the Y's heritage. 2. To provide programming which meets the specific needs of youth, adults and families, and which brings single people into the greater family of the Y. 3. To offer opportunities to develop leadership skills for children, youth, women and men. 4. To provide opportunities for participants, volunteers and staff to examine and develop their own values and life management skills. 5. To encourage participation of diverse racial and ethnic groups in all aspects of the organization, thereby strengthening intercultural and international communication and awareness. The Rochester area Y has a total of 5638 members and serves 478 of those members with financial assistance. Our financial assistance policy is open to all who qualify based on income ( income verification is required). In addition to our individual members, many of the local non-profit agencies use the Y to provide recreational activities to their clients. Many of these people have physical limitations which require adaptations to the environment in order to enable them to be full participants. The Y strives to be an open, welcoming organization that is committed to promoting community building among all members of our service area. One area that we feel can be improved upon is making our building more user friendly for people with disabilities. Currently, the Y provides one locker room that is designated for use by people with disabilities as well as by adults who are here with their opposite gender children who are too young to use the locker facilities unaccompanied. The growing number of families that are headed by single adults has dramatically increased the need for the family locker -room and has placed stress on our existing facility. While our building 10 "Providing for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the individual, family and community." A United Way Agency and pool are currently accessible, much needed improvements would make • access more complete and would serve to resolve the overcrowding problem which currently exists in our family/accessible locker -room.. Our plan for upgrading our facility includes remodeling our family/accessible locker -room and our current boys locker -room into two separate and efficient locker -rooms. This change would include installing electric doors and a new ramp leading to the pool. Additionally, the Y will move the Family locker - room to the site of the current boys locker -room. This will provide more room and privacy for our members who utilize both locker -rooms. Individual changing rooms and showers will be provided in both rooms. The accessible locker -room would be aesthetically updated as well as having more accessibility features offered. The total cost of this project is estimated to be approximately $45,000.00 , the Y has already received a grant of $5,000.00 from the AFL-CIO and has additional monies budgeted for building projects, however, the scope and size of this project means that it cannot be completed without additional resources. The Y is requesting $20,000 from the Community Development Block Grant • in order to complete this renovation project and make our facility more accessible to both families and individuals who require accessible facilities. If you have any questions, please call me at 287-2260. c ely, Dean Stenehjem Executive Direct4 Southeastern Minnesota Center for Independent Living, Inc. August 11, 1995 Ms. Theresa Fogarty, CDBG Administrator Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department Housing Division 2116 Campus Drive SE, suite 10 Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Ms. Fogarty: 6-q Please find enclosed SEMCIL's 1996 CDBG continuation proposal. As requested, I am also enclosing SEMCIL's 1994 IRS Form 990. For 1996, SEMCIL is proposing to continue to provide structural modifications or equipment for persons with disabilities who are at risk of losing their independence due to architectural barriers or other accessibility issues . in their home. Over the past two years, SEMCIL's CDBG funded Home Modification/ Rehabilitation Program has experienced phenomenal growth; thus, for 1996 SEMCIL is requesting $50,000 to meet projected consumer requests for assistance. As in.the past, this program will be available to consumers with disabilities who have low to moderate incomes. The maximum grant to each eligible consumer would be $1500. Please feel free to contact either Laurie Brownell or me should you have any questions regarding SEMCIL's 1996 proposal. Thanks.in advance for considering this request, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure greater independence for persons with disabilities. WB/fb enc. :-_ Sincerely, William Bauer Executive Director 0 14 bar Rochester Center 1306 Seventh Street Northwest • Rochester, Minnnesota 55901 • (507) 285-1815 Voice & TDD 1996 REQUEST FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FONDS SEMCIL Home Modification/Rehabilitation Program • Introduction. The Southeastern Minnesota Center for Independent Living, Inc. (SEMCIL) is a not -for -profit organization that provides programs and services that empower persons with physical, sensory, learning, mental, developmental, or other disabilities to live with greater independence. SEMCIL's cross -disability programs and services include advocacy, information and referral, peer counseling, independent living skills training, accessibility services, ADA technical assistance and training, support groups, housing referrals, disability awareness/sensitivity training, outreach services, personal assistant services, brain injury program, transition services, and home modifications. Project Description. The continuation of SEMCIL's Home Modification/Rehabilitation Program will assist persons with disabilities to remove architectural barriers or other accessibility issues in their homes. This program is essential, as Rochester continues to experience shortages of accessible rental houses and apartments. Without the continuation of CDBG funds for home modifications, the results will be continuing or increased dependency upon consumers' family members and/or personal assistants. In some instances, especially among those who are newly disabled, consumers may be at risk of institutionalization until barriers in their homes can be removed. SEMCIL's Home Modification/Rehabilitation Program will focus on barrier removal for consumers with disabilities with low to moderate incomes. Over the past two years, the increase in consumer requests for this assistance • has been phenomenal; thus for 1996, SEMCIL is requesting $50,000 to meet consumer demands for home modification assistance. SEMCIL's Home Modification Coordinator will meet with each consumer requesting assistance to conduct an on -site evaluation to determine the most cost-effective solution to the barrier problem, and to verify that the consumer resides in, and possesses. or owns the property. Each consumer requesting assistance will be required to have his/her income verified by a third party. SEMCIL's administrative costs will account for no more than ten percent of the total grant allocation. Administrative costs will remain low by keeping the application process simple and basic and follow-up documentation at a minimum. A cap of $1500 per consumer will.remain in place. SEMCIL's Home Modification/Rehabilitation Program will be promoted to consumers through public service announcements, disability publications/newsletters, and through networking with other human service organizations assisting persons with disabilities.. Community Need. The following facts demonstrate the importance of the Home Modification/Rehabilitation Program: • SEMCIL conducts an average of fifty home modification assessments annually; Of these assessments, approximately ninety percent of the consumers requesting home modification assistance have limited financial resources and are unable to remove barriers from their homes; . . The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has a minimum two year waiting list for home modifications; • The waiting list for subsidized, accessible apartments in Rochester is extensive and there continues to be an insufficient number • of rental units available to meet consumer demands; • The need for subsidized, accessible units has been documented by the Olmsted County Needs Assessment Partnership Housing Subcommittee; The Housing and Redevelopment Authority projects a three year wait for Section 8 certificates and public housing assistance. Program Action Steps. Program operations will be conducted as follows: Upon referral to SEMCIL, an information request form is completed and required documentation is compiled; An on -site survey of the home or apartment is then conducted, which includes measurements and discussions with the consumer regarding needs, goals and priorities; A home modification plan is -then submitted to the consumer with information regarding specific designs, devices, equipment, resources and other relevant materials. The home modification plan will detail the most cost-effective solutions that meet the consumer's needs. The consumer's financial information will be reviewed, and each consumer's ability to pay for recommended modifications.will be determined; The amount of each home modification grant to consumers will be determined in accordance with SEMCIL's established home modification policies;. Follow-up services will be provided to ensure satisfactory completion of the home modification plan. Conclusion. SEMCIL first received CDBG funds in 1994 to develop the Home Modification/Rehabilitation Program. The number of consumers requesting assistance has more than doubled over the past two years. It is anticipated that 1995 funds for these modifications will be exhausted long before the end of the calendar year. In 1995, SEMCIL's consumers most frequently requested program funds for ramps, grab bars, kitchen and bathroom modifications, assistive or augmentative devices, and other equipment that became permanent fixtures in their homes. These essential modifications that.facilitated or expanded consumers' independence.and ability to remain in their own homes would not have been possible without CDBG funding. STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • PHONE NO.507-285-7428 FILE NO. August 9, 1995 Theresa Fogarty CDBG Administrator Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department Housing Division 2116 Campus Drive S.E., Suite 10 Rochester, MN 55904 Ms. Fogarty, I would like to introduce myself and the program that I work for and explain how I feel that we could use a grant from you to benefit low income handicapped and elderly in Rochester. My name is Jesse Roberts and I am the project coordinator for the Minnesota Conservation Corps in Southern Minnesota. The Minnesota Conservation Corps employees 18-25 year old young adults that are unemployed or underemployed Minnesota residents. The type of work we usually perform is Natural Resource type projects for the Department of Natural Resources (D.N.R.). We recently became an Americorps program that has allowed us the flexibility to work on projects that benefit the community. In acquiring the Americorps status we are able to provide our corps members with an education stipend for continued schooling after they leave the program, health insurance, and child care. However, the majority of our funds come from the state and are dedicated to specific parks, trails, forestry, wildlife, and fisheries projects. Our goal is to take inexperienced young adults and teach them proper work ethics and give them experience in a variety of work projects. We also provide 16 hours of education and, training for the corps members every month. The education and training usually focuses on topics to benefit the corps members such as resume writing, CPR, first aid, interviewing skills, life skills classes, job search, ect. There are two reasons I am applying for the grant. The first reason is to employee a crew of three people to work on projects that would help elderly and handicapped low income Rochester residents. The three corps members would be low income Rochester young adults. The second reason is to assist low income elderly and handicapped Rochester residents with projects that they can not do themselves and can not afford to hire someone to come in and do for them. The projects that I am proposing we perform for the elderly and handicapped would be outside lawn and garden maintenance and small construction projects. The types of projects that I am envisioning would be mowing lawns, shoveling driveways and sidewalks, raking leaves, planting and weeding gardens and flower beds, pruning trees and hedges, washing windows, minor home repair such as replacing light bulbs and fixing leaky faucets, cleaning out gutters, painting, ect. I feel this would be an excellent opportunity to allow Rochester youth to give AN EQUAL. OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER something back to the community and to get a chance to deal directly with the handicapped and elderly to gain perspective and insight as to the challenges faced by the elderly and • handicapped on a daily basis. I think that the elderly and handicapped would also gain a positive perspective of today's youth to contradict all the negative press that youth are usually attributed too. I have been in contact with SEMCIL in Rochester and they have agreed to act as a referral service for our projects assisting with locating residents in need, advertising our services, and performing income verifications to make sure the residents meet the low income guidelines. The amount of funds I am requesting to get this project underway are as follows: • Salaries: 1 crew supervisor at $7.50/hour x 1040 hours=$7800.00 2 corps members at $4.50/hour x 1040 hours = $9360.00 • Fleet: 1 4-wheel drive truck at 191.71/month x 6 months = $1150.26 • Equipment: snowblower, lawnmower, rakes, shovels, ladders, gas, loppers, small tools, ect. = $5000.00 • Education stipend: 3 corps members x $2362.50 = $7087.50 • Administration: $17160.00 x 25% = $4290.00 - state policy is administration is 25% of salaries • Total of funds requested: $34,687.76 I would like to reiterate that I believe that this would be a very worthwhile project that would have many direct and indirect benefits to both the community and the participants. I • would like to express my sincere thanks for your consideration of my proposal and I will look forward to hearing from you in the future. incerely, ��`�` R1 I-iesse Roberts Minnesota Conservation Corps Project Coordinator 2300 Silver Creek Road N.E. Rochester, MN 55906 0 • Zumbro Valley Suite 105.116 Camp0 Rochester. MNN 55904 Mental Health Center (281-653 F253 FAX �J (507) 81-AX Foundation (507)287-1441 August 14, 1995 Theresa Fogerty CDSG Administrator Olmsted County Housing and Redevlopment Authority 2116 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dcar Ms. Fogerty: C—a- Attached is the 1995 Community Development Block Grant Request from Zumbro Valley Mental Ilealth Center. Our request is for $8,600.00 to replace the existing driveway at THOMAS House, . add a walkway to the front of the house and a paved area for basketball in the backyard. If you have any questions, please call me at 297-2099. Thank. you. Sincc�cly, Vicki Dalle-Molle Residential Sen,ices Coordinator .Community Support Programs • Dakota House Fillmore CSP Riverview 317 Dakom Street P.O. Box 214 47 NW 13'A Street Red Wing, MN 55066 .Preston, MN SS965 Rochester. MN 55901 (612) 388.7641 (507) 765-2788 (507) 287-20" (507) 287.2274 FAX ME 14, THOMAS House IS SE 6th Avenue Rochester, MN 55904 (507) 287-2025 1995 REQUEST FOR COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT DEVELOPMENT FUNDS DATE: August 11, 1995 • AGENCY: Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center, Inc. 2116 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 PROGRAM: THOMAS House 15 SE 6th Avenue Rochester, MN 55904 CONTACT: James Hermanson Executive Director Zumbro Valley Mental Health.Center, Inc. (507)287-1450 Vicki Dalle-Molle Residential Services Coordinator (507) 287-2099/2025 AGENCY BACKGROUND Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center (ZVMHC) is a.private, nonprofit organization that has • served the mental health and chemical dependency service needs of southeastern Minnesota since 1965. Its mission statement reflects a longstanding commitment of responsiveness to the community and in maintaining and creating programs that are effective and affordable. The major goals of ZVMHC include: 1. To provide an array of prevention, intervention, evaluation, treatment, and residential services for individuals and families experiencing problems with behavior, mental illness or chemical use. 2. To facilitate the development of new services to address unmet community mental health needs. 3. To develop and maintain diverse funding to insure affordability of services. ZVMHC offers the following services: outpatient mental health therapy for adults, families and children, outpatient chemical health services, detoxification services and short term mental health crisis admissions, community and housing support services for adults with severe mental illness, partial hospitalization services, and supervised residential treatment for adults with acute or persistent mental illness through THOMAS House. THOMAS House's 12-bed treatment program is licensed by the MN Department of Human Services as a Rule 36 transitional board and lodging facility. THOMAS House was developed in 1979 in cooperation with interested consumers, family members, mental health professionals and community agencies. The program provides an opportunity for residents to assume self - responsibility by providing structure, treatment, education and social support. • PROJECT SUMMARY • Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center requests $8,600.00 to replace the existing driveway, increase parking, provide a walkway to the front of the house, paved space for basketball and improve the landscape at THOMAS House. The existing driveway is badly cracked in several areas. Ground shifting has caused the foot of the driveway to sink, so that it is no longer level with the street.A good 8 inches of water accumulates in this sunken area at its deepest spot. In the winter, this frequently freezes, making the driveway difficult to get in and out of. The existing driveway does not extend the full length of the house. This project will extend the driveway creating extra parking. A sidewalk from the driveway to the front porch will be added, making access to the front of the house easier and safer for all residents and staff. This project includes the addition of a paved area for basketball in the back of the house. A poll of 18 residents (the current twelve (12) plus six (6) who lived in the house in the past year) found that 90% of THOMAS House residents would welcome (and use) an area for basketball. In the past year, ZVMHC renovated the interior of THOMAS House (kitchen, dinning room and main floor bathroom). The exterior was painted this past spring. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center is committed to keeping THOMAS House in good repair. We do this not only because it is in the best interest of our residents but because it benefits our neighborhood. • The replacement of the driveway and the addition of a sidewalk to the front of the house will greatly improve the appearance of THOMAS House. The addition of an area to play basketball will greatly improve the recreational activities offered to residents. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center would appreciate your support of this project Attachment A contains photographs of the existing THOMAS House driveway. Attachment B contains ZVMHC's Form 990. 11 M +: i 'BTW '. i.pF.PpCHESTEg: NI'YjOs �'j--� = ..• TT ORA 7'ED AUGUSS� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 TO: Theresa Fogarty, CDBG Administrator `il ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 FROM: Phil Wheeler, Director, Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department PLANNING DATE: August 2, 1995 HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 RE: 1996 Funding Request for the City of Rochester's CDBG Housing ul DI cdjLj�hon L 507l285.8213 �PTIC' �l285-8345 and Rental Rehabilitation Loan Programs. CDBG HOUSING REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDING REQUEST: 3 230,000 The CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program is designed to assist low and moderate income homeowners in making necessary improvements to their properties to conform to local building code requirements and rehabilitation standards. Since 1983, when the program started, 184 families have been assisted under the program. The CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program is a Deferred Loan Program which allows the City of Rochester to eventually recoup all rehab funds expended. Repayment by a homeowner occurs when they sell or transfer title to the property, or if it becomes investor -owned (rental). At • the present time there are 16 families on the program waiting list. The following is an estimated 1996 budget for the program: Rehabilitation $ 200,000 (15 homes x $13,333/home) Administration $ 30,000 1996 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 230,000 As of July 25, a balance of $154,000 remained in the CDBG rehab program account. Of this amount, $150,000 will be expended by the end of the year. This includes funding for projects which funds have been allocated/under contract and administrative costs. The remaining $4,000 will be used for any emergency case or be carried over into 1996. There are currently 12 families on the program waiting list. This program provides an affordable financing tool for homeowners to eliminate substandard housing conditions. Because of their lack of financial resources, low and moderate income homeowners are unable to obtain financing elsewhere for the improvements. This program provides that opportunity and does not create a financial burden through an additional monthly payment. • tlb�� �,..w� AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER CDBG RENTAL REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDING REQUEST: $ 240,000 • The CDBG Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program is designed to assist owners in making necessary improvements to their properties to conform to local building and rental code requirements. In 1995, eight properties (27 units) were rehabilitated. The. CDBG Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program is a Deferred Loan Program which allows the City of Rochester to eventually recoup all rehab funds expended. Repayment by a homeowner occurs when they sell or transfer title to the property, or, rents and tenant incomes do not meet program guidelines. At the present time there are 28 owners on the program waiting list. The following is an estimated 1996 budget for the program: Rehabilitation $ 220,000 (51 rental units x $4,314/unit) Administration $ 20,000 1996 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 240,000 As of July 25, a balance of $124,000 remained in the CDBG rental rehab program account. Of this amount, $120,000 will be expended by the end of the year. This includes funding for projects which funds have been allocated/under contract and administrative costs. The remaining $4,000 will be carried over into 1996. l • ROCHESTER AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY P.O. Box 456 Rochester, Minnesota 55903 507-252-0849 4oard REQUEST FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS of Directors DATE: August- 14, 1995 - Don Beed, President ORGANIZATION: Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity Tom Renquist PO Box 456 1stVice President Rochester, MN 55903 Scott Kaese ( 507 ) 252-0849 _'nd Vice President Joanne Benson, CONTACT: Don Beed, President Secretary R.R. ( Bob ) Jones I I I Troy Stafford Treasurer INTENT Judv Auger Duane Baldwin David Colville Everett Humke Al Luther Lois McDougall Mike Resman Helen Reynolds Clem Seibert Deborah Smith Joyce Stromberg Marlys Wagner � nne Weygand een Williams i U� Unwed Way of Olmsted County To request $40,000 to be used toward the purpose of four building lots in the city of Rochester. Houses will be constructed on these lots by Habitat for Humanity and sold to very low income families who would not otherwise be able to afford home ownership. ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity was established in 1990 in response to a county -wide housing survey which identified a critical need for affordable housing in the area. As an affiliate of Habitat for Humanity International, Rochester Area Habitat subscribes to the philosophy and values of the international organization. It is, however, an independent, private non-profit organization 501(c)3 administered by a local Board of Directors. Funding for the agency comes primarily from local individual and church contributions. Additionally, Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity was accepted as a member agency of United Way of Olmsted County in 1991. Habitat's mission is to build simple, decent, affordable housing for the working poor in our community. This is accomplished by using as much donated material and volunteer labor as possible in the construction of homes. The homes are then sold at no profit and no interest to families who would not otherwise be able to afford home ownership. Habitat's Family Selection Committee, made up of volunteers, uses a number of different criteria to select the homeowner partners. Once a home is sold, the monthly payments made by the homeowners are "recycled" by Habitat to build additional affordable houses. While Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity builds homes, it also works to build community. Homeowners are required to put in 250 hours of "Sweat Equity" in the construction of their home or other Habitat homes. They work side by side with volunteers from throughout the community. By bringing together the poor and the more affluent members of the community, the Habitat experience begins to break down some of the attitudinal barriers which separate and insulate us as individuals. By making.the issue of decent housing a matter of conscience and action, Habitat enhances the quality of life for all members of the community-. CDBG Request . Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity Page 2 Since beginning in 1990, Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity has completed six homes. Work is currently in progress on three additional homes, which are scheduled for completion by the end of the ,year. Two of these are in southeast Rochester; the third is located southwest and will be our first handicap -accessible home. Rochester Area Habitat owns three more building lots in northwest Rochester and plans to complete houses on them by the end of 1996. LOCAL NEED The 1990 report of the Rochester -Olmsted Community Housing Partnership made clear the need in this community. for housing which. is affordable for low and very low income residents. This need was further identified in the results of the COMPAS Partnership study. Habitat's experience over the past five years has confirmed these findings. In Habitat's most recent selection process, for instance, 65 applications were received for the three available houses in a in a brief six -week period. Many more requests were received after the application deadline and there is already a waiting list for the three houses on which construction has not yet even begun, scheduled for 1996. Most of these 65 applicants were employed full-time and many were life-long Rochester area residents. Habitat's income eligibility guidelines target those who are considered to be "very low income" by HUD standards. Although some of the Habitat applicants were above this level (and thus not considered for a Habitat house), they were not above the "low income" level. All of the applicants were in need of adequate, affordable housing. REASON FOR REQUEST Looking to the future, Habitat anticipates a continued need for housing in the Rochester area which is affordable for very low income residents. Rochester Habitat's plans for 1996 include construction on the three remaining lots currently owned and extensive planning for 1997 and beyond. The obvious first step toward construction in 1997 is the purchase of property over the next 12 months. Through its no interest/no profit policy, and its extensive use of volunteer labor and donated materials from the business community, Habitat is able to construct and sell homes for as little as $40,000. Such extensive mobilization of support from the private sector combined with Habitat's policy of "recycling" house palments into the construction of additional houses makes this a very cost effective strategy for the development of affordable housing. Any . funds invested into start-up and development costs continue to pay a dividend to the community. CDBG Request Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity Page 3 BRIEF PROJECT SUMMARY Rochester Area Habitat plans to purchase four building lots in 1996. A $40,000 CDBG would be used to partially fund such a purchase. The high cost of property in Rochester is a significant road block to the construction of affordable housing. Consequently, Habitat's Planning/Site Selection Committee has also initiated a strategy to identify groups or individuals who may be willing to make in -kind donations of a portion of the value of buildable property. Community interest, citizen and church involvement in Habitat's work have been extremely high over the past three years. This support has been demonstrated in many ways, not the least of which has been financial. Habitat is confident that support will continue and that suitable building lots will become available at a cost it can afford. Support from the City of Rochester in the form of CDBG funds will help Habitat continue building homes at a steady rate. It will also help to sustain the current high level of private sector support for Habitat's efforts. • 220 South Broadway -Suite 100 Q Rochester, MN 55904 II 507-288-0208 FAX 507-282-8960 Rochester Area Economic Development Inc. August 10, 1995 Ms. Theresa Fogarty Olmsted County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 2116 Campus Drive SE, Suite 10 Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Ms. Fogarty: The purpose of this letter is to outline the structure of a microenterprise loan program for the city of Rochester. We have discussed the idea of this project with several community leaders and all agree this program is needed. overview • The city of Rochester has seen tremendous economic activity in the past two years. Rochester Area Economic Development, Inc. (RAEDI) has been involved in assisting businesses in the community to develop sound business plans, assist in packaging financial structures, and has acted as the facilitator between businesses and public/private. agencies. Our office has received dozens of requests for help already in 1995. The majority of these requests are from business start-ups or companies that are experiencing fast growth. Their needs for financial resources are great. Many times, a local bank is willing to lend a portion of the proceeds needed, but a gap between these borrowed funds and owners' equity will often exist. We propose to use the microenterprise loan program to fill these gaps. • Administration RAEDI has been successfully involved in utilizing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies in the past.. We successfully operated a business incubator that helped four companies survive the start-up phase. We have also managed our own SEED/Venture Fund for seven years. This SEED/Venture Fund has a committee of volunteer business leaders who interview applicants, perform due diligence, and make decisions on the amount and period of loans. A Public and Private Partnership for Economic Development It would be our request that the CDBG monies be administered by RAEDI. A member of the city administration would also be • involved in all loan requests and would be a member of the loan committee. At present, the RAEDI Board of Directors includes two city council members. RAEDI would be responsible for all collection activities and funds paid by the borrower would be returned to the loan pool. Parameters of each loan would be decided by the loan committee. Eligibility RAEDI is a non-profit development corporation with an existing long-term structure to facilitate this project. RAEDI is compatible with Federal Register Section 105 (a)(23). Marketing RAEDI, in its ongoing efforts to facilitate economic growth in Rochester, will utilize many public and private partner- ships to encourage eligible candidates to apply for funding. We will enhance community awareness of these funds through various agencies, including, but not limited to, the Diversity Council (a 'non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing harmony among all racial groups), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Intercultural Mutual Assistance Association, the Rochester International Association, the Service Corp of Retired Executives (SCORE), and the Small Business Development Center (SBDC). We will • also provide the various media sources with timely press releases. Finally, letters of explanation of the program and its guidelines will be sent to all area banks, accountants, and business attorneys. Process All applicants will be required to provide a sound business plan to RAEDI., This requirement demonstrates that the applicant has taken the time to think out their venture and has a greater chance of survival. RAEDI staff will review the business plan with the applicant and make recommendations in order to enhance the project. Once RAEDI determines that the venture has merit, staff will assist the applicant with additional financial needs to develop a complete package. The applicant will be asked to present their venture to the loan committee. Upon recommendation by the loan committee, the RAEDI Board of Directors will vote on the venture. The RAEDI Board meets monthly providing a timely window for applicant. The funds used for the microenterprise project will follow all HUD guidelines and will be documented according to HUD guidelines. We feel it is important that funds from the microenterprise loan pool not exceed 50 percent of the entire project. We also feel that the venture must create or sustain • viable jobs. Finally, we feel that the funds will be used as . "gap financing" funds. This implies that the applicant has maximized bank financing and has adequate equity in the project. In some instances, microenterprise funds could be used to guarantee portions of bank financing. Funding RAEDI is requesting that the microenterprise loan pool be established with an initial amount of $100,000. We foresee loans and/or guarantees made to businesses to be in the $7,000 to $15,000 range. Summary It is very important to create jobs that enhance the well- being of low and moderate income people. This project will provide RAEDI with a tool to help this group to better their positions as well as to create jobs for others. Enclosed please find letters of support from various businesses and organizations. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully, • ROCHESTER AREA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INC. Chri Mullen Vice President CM:tb • NUCROEN7ERPRISF PROJECTS Ithaca, New lark This 1992 surcess stony is a spinoff of a previous G)BG surreys stop• in Ithira. Nnv 1brk. It hegins in 1985 unth $15,000 in Small • C.etiea CDBG funds used to initiate a youth -managed Ben and jrny's ice cream store. The funds were matched bs founelation and corporate assistance, and the project was sponsored bs a local nonprofrl argani:a- tion which was responsilde for id mlij.%ing the Youth and roardinaling ehestart-up. The prt jerl is a rlassicaampleofa private/publie parinn- shipThal umks. The store was located in a buildingpartly funded by an Urban Development Action Grant (LVAG). Ben and jerry's, with its strong commitment to youth and community involvement, made avail- able several months' inventory of its product as well as training manu- als, an ice cream frere�r. a waiver of its fronchise fee, and the consulting services of its Vice -President. The projert was also funded by community loans and a loan from a local credit union. In this mirnenterpnse project called "}'myth .Srarps, " young people run the more scam, doingnwrylhing fmm counter servire to financial planning. Theprojeed. the bminrhildoflawyerlacrountantjeffFurman, has already paid off most of its loans. }buth Scoops has resulted in the creation of 15 part -lime and 4 full-time jobs far law, and modrralr• income individuals. Its rmphnees rangr in agr from 14 to 22 years. The number of jobs rreatrd is a source of pride to the mep1gvws and the com- munity. This pilot program in Ithaca has been so sucreaiful that rtery Ben and jerry's franchise opined in the last twx and -a -half years has ban Comm unity oiienled. Ithaca has continued to npand its rnirretterprim ventures, and this is where Use 1992surrrss .story begins. Again. nserysmallammrnl of Small Cilia (7)BG funds, 525,(X)Ohas resulted in ernnomeroppor- tunitia and life long skiffs for youth in the arm and has increased a sense of community in the Cats. The Bea cs fern's Foundation also committed 5I5,(X)brantingnU upon llhaea mrivingthe (2)BG funds. These funds have been used to underwrite a rnirnenterprise twining prnjert rrraled by the samemlrr"eur that began }outh .Srmps..Sinre • January I993, /effFurman has tern leaching his mwrr mini -MBA warn, to 10high schoolstudents andgraduales, mrmrmging them to enter the business uorbf. Operated by the Cmarr Ithaca Artinth^ ('Hoer (CLiC), a mulli- ntlruml rom munity renter, this program prmidn pmcliral tminingand services to lamimmrre and minority youth, moo ofwhom am in mliral need of job training and business skills. GLAC pmvides business plans and rash f7mw analyses for mrh business the targeted youths rreate..4 smallamount (up lo51,(100) ofsmd equity rapital is provided fOrmrh initiative. As a result of this project, three young adults have established mieroenlerprise businesses One young enlrrpmneur runs a sma4 but thriving clothing design business. He selects and buys the fabrics and materials in cities throughout New }ink .Soak. He then designs, sous. prices, and markets his clothes. He photographs his own morfelsfor a color seasonal rntatrg, which he ahn prepares. In his rom urcrcds. -111 fun whin i sell something The money, and wring peope ualking on the street wearing your outfit. i sqn 'Hey, i did that!'...I hole perfile- rernember me as a designer, and as a goofi roe model fora lot of blarki . and other minorities. - - Asecond graduate oftheCDBGfunded program runs a T-shirt and rap business. Rerenty, he made $1,000 in sales mostly as a (raveling salesman on a mountain bike. He joins bike rarer in and out of the city and takes monger backpack full ofshirts and raps to sell to fellow ran". He also advertises his produm in a bike magazine and scrubs out cata- logs. His signature rhararter is a fal, bald man orFB.%L Wien he is older, he would like to start his own mail shop. A third entrepreneur mrrived $525 from thr fund to buy inventory Jar a vending cart. His rompany, Pure&.Satuml tlholesale Supply, sells health and beauty aids manufactured by and for African Amen - • cans. These sucress stories show what a small amount of Fereral funds can do when coupled with individuals committed to the community. 3-16 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Minnesota State Office 220 Second Street South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2195 'tLLR�O. A s JU 7 2 7 '995 e'•��OEK�J - Theresa Fogarty Olmsted County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 2116 Campus Drive SE, Suite•10, Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Ms. Fogarty: Subject: Economic Development Proposal for Rochester Area Economic Development, Inc. Rochester, MN In response to your letter of June 12, we are able to approve or concur with most of your proposal. However, we are unable to concur in establish a $100,000 account administered directly by RAEDI. The 24 CFR 570 Regulations governing CDBG funds do not allow for the establishment of a lump sum deposit of funds in a separate account except in the case of housing rehabilitation programs for a recipient. The City must maintain the account but may allow RAEDI to draw on the funds designated for the economic development pool as need and expenses incurred. The City is reminded that a subrecipient agreement must be developed with specific references'to the scope of work, use of funds and requirements to meet the low/moderate benefit test. In the agreement specify the amount of funds for loan, grants and administrative cost. If you have any further questions please contact Tom Koon, CPD Representative, at telephone (612) 370-3035. sincerely yours, Shawn HuckleAyCPffirector J DIVERSITY COUNCIL August 3, 1995 Ms. Theresa Fogarty Olmsted County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 2116 Campus Drive SE, Suite 10 Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Ms. Fogarty, 220 S BROADWAY, SUITE 104 ROCHESTER MN 55904 PHONE 507-282-0 FAX 507-282-8960 The Diversity Council supports the proposal by RAEDI to create a microenterprise .loan program for the city of Rochester. Our goals of increasing the acceptance of cultural diversity and reducing racism in the community are enhanced when economic opportunities are increased for everyone. According to a 1993 report by MN Planning only about 1.5% of businesses in Minnesota were owned by people of color, even though the Minnesota population of people of color was close to 7% during this same period. The report also states, "Getting the funds and assistance to start, expand and run a business can be particularly difficult for people of color". On average, people of color in Minnesota have lower incomes than the white population. According to the above cited study, " Median income of African American, American Indian and Asian households in the state dropped in the 1980s, while that of white households increased". This kind of data supports the need for the microenterprise loan program. We at the Diversity Council will help to spread the information about this program among the people of color in the community. And we are happy to support this initiative by RAEDI. Si n�cerely Patrick Farrell, President Diversity Council • • To help build a community where the anitudes and actions of its people foster mutual respect so that people of all races can fully participate in the community. ��./�_iiizj ��MWAM TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN t6 71h Ave. SW Rochester, MN 55902 (507) 281-3900 This is to support the efforts of the Rochester Area Economic Development Inc. (RAEDI) to secure funds for the "Microenterprise Loan Program" through a Community Development Block Grant. It has been our experience, that there are many minorities in Rochester who have small businesses they cannot expand due to lack of funds. Every year, the Rochester International Association organizes the World Festival, an iinternational ethnic festival, at which, among other events, ethnic minorities sell their artistic products and crafts. There are also minority caterers involved. Some of these small businesses could very well profit from the infusion of some capital to better establish themselves or make it possible for them to pursue their businesses full instead of part time. We hope that HUD will consider granting the CDBG to the City of Rochester. It would most certainly be very well applied and administered. Sincerely, Herta R. Matteson President, Rochester International Association 0 TECHNICAL CAREER PLACEMENT, INC. • TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES f Professional, Technical, and General Employment Ouality, Long and Short Term Temporary Posit/ons J /. ' t. t I Suite 222C, Marketplace, 1915 Highway 52 N Rochester, Minnesota 55901 (507) 288-3623 George Gibbs, President July 31, 1995 Mr. Chris Mullen . Rochester Area Economic Development Inc. 220 South Broadway Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Mr. Mullen: Our Rochester community is growing rapidly with a greater diversity population. The.need for small business start up funds"along with expanding is growth would be an asset to our community. I am a small business owner. A low interest loan could help our business hire more people and expand. Our community welcome the microenterprise loan program. Your Truly, George Gibbs President 0 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Donald Butters Joe Casey Jim Cook Verl Fetty Leilani Gibbs Joyce Gibbs Nydia Klepper Pete Malaya Earl McGee Nancy Vollertsen Equal Employment Opportunity REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 17 DATE: 8/21 /95 4 4 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Hearings Public Works Q fEM DESCRIPTION: Residential Permit Parking Zane No. 3 "Mayo PREPARED BY: Park Neighborhood" D.M. Rossman ervy� This is a public hearing to consider establishment of Residential Permit Parking Zone No. 3. "Mayo Park Neighborhood" consisting of the area bounded by: 1.) 6th Ave. S.E. from East Center to 4th St. S.E. 2.) East Center St. from the Zumbro River to 6th Ave. S.E. 3.) Mayo Park Drive from East Center St. to 6th Ave. S.E. The residents of this area have presented a petition which meets the requirements of Ordinance 138. The area is impacted by non-resident parking generated by the Downtown Business District, the Mayo Civic Complex and Mayo Ballfield. The zone size exceeds the minimum zone size required. The Ordinance was recently amended to allow Permit Parking Zones in R-2 neighborhoods which this is. Staff recommends in favor of the petition. Council Action Requested Adopt the prepared resolution adding the following to Section : "Permit Parking": Zone 3 - Mayo Park Neighborhood Zone - Residential Permit Parking - 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. 1.) 6th Ave. S.E. on the west side from Center Street to 4th Street S.E. ti 2.) East Center Street from the Zumbro River to 6th Ave. S.E. 3.) Mayo Park Drive from East Center St. to 6th Ave. S.E. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: �I 01-91i�l�l�l'^I„I EAST CENTER. S T. w 0 uj 10 v) z tw,ne z.o zog zoo zt$ 2z2 226 '23Z 4ST.S.E. tii w — a 00 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/21/9 PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING I 8 _ 4 Vacation Petition #95-13 be Plaza 41 Northwest, Inc., to Vacate the Utility PREPA Easements Located on Lot 1, Block 1, Plaza 41 Northwest Jane August 14, 1995 Planning Department Review: Petitioner: Plaza 41 Northwest, Inc. Jim Benike, Treasurer PC Box 6606 Rochester, MN 55903-6606 Location of Property: This property is located at the southeast comer of 43rd Street NW and 31st Avenue NW. It is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Plaza 41 Northwest. Requested Action: Vacate several of the utility easements located on the lot described above. Reason for Request: The petitioners are proposing to develop this parcel with a building that would encroach into these easements. Referral Agency Comments: No objections have been received from any of the referral agencies. Plannirfa Department Recommendation: There does not appear to be a public need for this easement. In addition, on August 7, 1995, the Council issued a revocable permit to commence building on this site. The Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request. Council Action Needed: 1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution vacating the utility easement. pl'Y Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Copy of Petition Distribution: 1. City Administrator COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second try: ASEMjN `l' VAUP 1'10IN DESCRIPTION: EXHIBIT SCALE 1" 50• SEE ATTACHED: nV i +... - - - - -__ RCORIX1.BU(1. PUL 41 1f0B'MM SDMIM sm. . pS13_1f E 10' POBIS UtII]'if BASER i I 40 I 40 i 1 I 1 IC POBUC tT= BAmm $ TO a vuanm W � iP PRlp1C UfBIfT EImm 21196 ------- -------- N m Pu! I - . 40 40 Legend EASEMENT TO BE VACATED TZ%� EASEMENT TO REMAIN WLACELANOWMid Sri 1' 50' 'r lwc ROF EMONAL DESIGN GF.00P l[@Crl a �.. Betts tts ME: 07-10-95 ENNUI A= io : 4095/5229 +N ar s st &.." a as amar-sn G00 /44 : 522SEX01 ,:ity of Rochester, Minnesota I DATE: �0: Mayor and Common Council City Sall City of Rochester, Minnesota 55901 PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC RIGHT-0E-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) Plaza 41 Northwest, Inc. (Mr. Jim Benike Treasurer) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 1, Plaza 41 Northwest We hereby petition the Cocoon Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, to vacate the following described public property: See Attached The facts and reasons for such vacation are as follows: 1. Easements were platted during a previous plat and are no longer needed. 2. There are no utilities located in these easements (telephone, electric, water or sewer). ;. This space is needed for placement of a future building. Sheet 1 of 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0�3 DATE: 3/2I /95 4 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: NO. Ii:P PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING r S TEM DESCRIPTION: Type III. Phase U. Petition to Amend the Final Plan for Planned Unit ARED BY: Development R-93 (Wimbledon Hills) to Allow the Addition of Two Single ne Kansie i _ Family Homes Planner i August 15, 1995 i City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission considered this amendment at a public hearing on July 25, 1995, This request is to permit the developer to replace the swimming pool, community building and parking lot proposed for the southeast corner of this site with two single family dwellings At the hearing, there were several residents of the existing townhouse units and condominium units present to speak in opposition to this request. They fell that this area was necessary for recreation purposes and the existing parking lot was needed for overflow parking. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.146 (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. After a great deal of discussion, the Commission found that this proposal dose not meet #7 of these criteria, which states in cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase 11 site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph". The Commission members noted that the removal of the recreational area from the approved PUD plan is a substantial change that is detrimental to the development of the area. The Planning Commission recommends denial of this request. Motion by Bellinger to recommend denial of the Amendment to PUD R-93; second by Haley. The motion carried 4-2 (DeWitt and Suk voting no). Zoning Administrator's Action and Revort: On July 28, 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 II PUD Amendment for a public hearing as required under the provisions of Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of this site on Friday, August 11, 1995, and a notice of the hearing was published in the Friday, August 11, 1995, edition of the Rochester Post -Bulletin. The Planning staff recommendation on this request is included in the attached staff report, dated July 21, 1995. Council Action Needed: I 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny this request. If the Council wishes to proceed with the proposed amendment, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution authorizing the changes to the approved plan. The resolution should specifically reference the plan, consisting of one 8 1/2" by 14" plan sheet, dated 'Received Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department July 12, 1995". The resolution should also specify any i conditions of approval that the Council places on this amendment. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: C TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jane A. Kansier, Planner DATE: July 21,1995 �D�HESTEA•tp `, Ra TED.��CI;SS •- • ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 ?LANNING -ouSING;HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 -WELL'SEPTIC 507/285-8345 RE: Amendment to Planned Unit Development R-93 (Wimbledon Hills) to Allow the Addition of Two Single Family Homes Planning Denartmenf Review: Petitioners: Wimbledon Hills, Inc. Lou Krall Box 6903 Rochester, MN 55903 Surveyor/Engineer: Roger Brand St. Charles, MN Referral Agency Comments from the Rochester Park and Comments: Recreation Department, RPU Water Division and RPU Power Division are attached. Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 letters) 2. Location Map 3. Approved PUD Site Plan Showing the Recreation Center, Pool and Parking Lot 4. Approved Pool and Recreation Building Elevations 5. Site Plan Showing Existing Buildings and Improvements G. Survey Showing Proposed Building Sites 7. Existing Grading Plan Showing Proposed House Sites Plan Summary: PUD R-93 is an R-1 PUD consisting of 20.71 acres located on the south side of Country Club Road SW at the northeast end of Wimbledon Hills Drive SW. The original plan, approved in 1988, called for a total of 116 units in 29, two-story, four -unit buildings. The townhouses were grouped around a m� Oct a ID AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYiAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER • • Page 2 Wimbledon Hills PUD Amendment July 21, 1995 • private loop street called Connors Circle and a private cul-de-sac called Lark Lane. A community building with a swimming pool and a 20-stall community parking lot were to be located in the southeast comer of the site. The streets, the 20- stall parking lot and 9 of the units were constructed based on this original plan. In 1990, the plan was amended to replace 20 of the four -unit buildings with 18 twinplexes. This amendment reduced the total number of units from 116 to 72. The pool building and parking lot remained in the amendment. To date, 8 of the twinplexes have been built. Amendment Summary Proposed Use: At this time, the applicant is proposing an amendment to the PUD which would create two lots for single family dwellings in the southeast comer of the property. These two lots would replace the area originally devoted to the swimming pool and the community building and the existing 20-stall parking lot. Size: The two lots proposed are 21,114 square feet in area and 29,187 square feet in area. The building . site area on each lot 50' by 60', or 3,000 square feet. Access: Both of the proposed lots front on Wimbledon Hills Drive SW. There would be an individual driveway access from this road for each dwelling unit. Parking: Parking for each of the new dwelling units is provided on the individual lots. Analysis: The Wimbledon Hills PUD was approved under the planned unit development provisions of the 1972 Zoning Code. When the current Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual was adopted in 1992, it eliminated these provisions. The manual, however, does provide for amendments to an existing PUD. Paragraph 60.326 states that amendments to a PUD shall be processed through the Type III, Phase II, hearing process, and according to the regulations applicable to conditional use permits. Any change must also be evaluated based on the original underlying zoning of the development. ONII;- ./ The underlying zoning for Wimbledon Hills is the R-1 district. Under the manual, the closest type of development to the existing PUD is a performance residential development. A comparison of the original PUD standards, the existing development, the performance residential standards and the proposed development is shown in the table below: • Page 3 Wimbledon Hills PUD Amendment July 21, 1995 Original Performance R4 PUD Existing Residential Proposed Requirements Development Requirements Development Maximum Floor Area 241,252 sf 115,387 sf NA 122,387 sf Minimum O n S ace 323,028 sf 8 00,005 sf NA 804,005 sf Minimum Livin S ace 207,661 sf 615,568 sf - 541,277 sf 645,946 sf Minimum Recreation 18,459 sf 149,100 sf 26,921 s 30,832 sf S ace This development falls well within the standards for a R-1 Performance Residential Development. However, the amount of recreation space is deceiving. Of this area, 5,832 square feet consists of the decks off the back of the twinplexes. The remaining 25,000 square feet is located on the south side of Wimbledon Hills Drive. This 26,000 square feet is not really useable recreation space. There is additional open space on the slopes behind the twinplexes, but the slope of this area does not meet the standards for useable recreation space. It should be noted, however, that there is a 4 acre City park located east of this area in the Eagle Ridge Subdivision. Review Criteria: Amendments to an existing PUD are processed according to the regulations applicable to a conditional use permit. Paragraph 61.146 lists the standards for conditional use permits as follows: 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's made: f) 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 safely, 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 slam 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. r This number is based on the required 50% landscape area, applied to the entire site area of 18.18 acres. The Minimum Living Space requirement is the most applicable standard comparable to Landscape Area. 2 This number is based on the required 22% recreation space, applied to the actual floor area on the site. We assumed that the new dwellings would have a combined floor area of 7,000 square feet. • • Page 4 I / Wimbledon Hills PUD Amendment July 21. 1995 • 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. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase 11 site plan from the approved Phase 1 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, ar 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. 61.147 conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing 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 51.146. Staff Review and Recommendation: The Planning staff has reviewed this request based on the above criteria. The staff finds that this proposal is generally consistent with the above criteria. The staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. The buildable area for the dwelling units is shown on the attached survey. Any structure on these lots must be located within this area and otherwise developed according to the R-1 standards. Z The developer must submit homeowners association documents or covenants for these lots which address the use and location of detached accessory buildings and the parking of recreational vehicles. These documents must have the some types of restrictions on these uses as the townhouse association documents. 3. A grading plan for each of the new dwelling units must be submitted and approved by the Rochester Public Works Department This grading plan must indicate how it ties into the grading and drainage patterns for the existing development 4. The parkland dedication requirements for this development must be satisfled by a cash dedication in lieu of land. 8. Any existing water service that may have been extended into the area for a swimming pool and recreation building must be abandoned according to the current requirements. 8. Each of the single family dwellings must be provided with Individual water services. �1 ry Page 5 / Wimbledon Hills PUD Amendment July 21, 1995 Planning Commission Action Required: 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. Reviewed by Date . WIMBLEDON HILLS, INC. 2804 2nd Street, SW Box 6903 Rochester, MN 55902 August 21, 1995 Common Council of the City of Rochester and Mr. Terry Adkins, Common Council Attorney 224 First Avenue SW Rochester, MN 55902 Re: Wimbledon Hills Request to Amend PUD Plan Dear Members of the Common Council and Mr. Adkins: This letter will serve to provide the Common Council with background information on our request for a PUD Amendment which involves a parcel of land in Outlot A (a common area lot) that was deleted from that common area by consent of all unit owners and their mortgagees: Wimbledon Hills intends to replat the deleted parcel • into two residential lots. The original PUD plan was filed with the Planning Department in 1988 and was approved in 1989. Construction commenced in 1989. The construction money was supplied by Wimbledon Hills, Inc. Take-out financing could not be obtained from any source we approached except FHA. FHA conditioned its loan commitment upon the elimination of the proposed swimming pool and recreation building. No reference was ever made in our sales literature respecting a pool or recreation building. Not one buyer was ever told that there would be a pool or recreation building on the parcel of land deleted from the common area known as Outlot A. A small parking lot to serve potential buyers was built on the subject parcel across the street from our sales office. These parking spaces were never required by the Planning Department. These parking spaces for prospective buyers, while appearing on the PUD, were not required off-street parking to serve the development. The unit owners recognized that fact when they signed the Amendment to the Declaration deleting the areas designated for parking, swimming pool and recreation building from the common area. • Thirty six condominium units were built but, because sales were very slow, a decision was made to build townhomes on the remaining twenty lots. Common Council of the City of Rochester and Mr. Terry Adkins, Common Council Attorney • August 21, 1995 Page 2 In 1990 twenty lots were replatted into thirty six townhome lots. This replat was approved in July of 1991 by all City departments. The common area of Outlot A was changed by an Agreement of May 1, 1991, signed by all of the unit owners and mortgagees, a copy of which is enclosed. The Amend- ment was recorded in August of 1991 and all subsequent purchasers took title knowing that the deleted parcel of Outlot A was not part of the common area. Wimbledon Hills, Inc. still has the right to redeem all of Outlot A from the tax sale and intends to exercise that right and convey Outlot A to the Association retaining title to the balance of Outlot A deleted by the Amendment agreement, after Outlot A is replatted. The Planning Commission, in denying our application to amend the PUD, may have made its decision on the basis that these two proposed lots constitute a substantial change in the common area of the condominium and townhome developments. The • proposed lots are not in the common area of Outlot A. The common area is the balance of Outlot A. See Exhibit B of the May 1, 1991 Agreement. After the May 1, 1991 Amendment to Declaration was executed all buyers of units and their respective lenders knew this parcel was eliminated from the common area. If the Planning Commission's action is upheld by the Council, nothing can be built on this deleted parcel of Outlot A except a swimming pool and recreation building. In 1993 Wimbledon Hills decided to build six townhomes on the deleted parcel. The layout for these three buildings was prepared by McGhie & Betts, Inc. A copy of this plan is attached. A decision was later made to divide the subject parcel into two R-1 lots because Wimbledon Hills townhome sales have been slow during the past two years. Our application to amend the PUD is a required procedure and it was approved by the Planning Department with six conditions attached, which are all acceptable to Wimbledon Hills. The Planning Commission found the application was acceptable except that it did not meet Item 7 of the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.146 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, which states: 11 Common Council of the City of Rochester and • Mr. Terry Adkins, Common Council Attorney August 21, 1995 Page 3 "...in cases where a Phase 1 Plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase 2 Site Plan from the approved Phase 1 Plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph." An exchange of the zoned recreational area to an area that permits like housing to be built, that is permitted under the Condominium Declaration, is not a substantial detrimental change in the use of the land. If the application is approved, the parcel of land will be completely separated from the condominiums and townhomes. The parcel should actually be removed from the PUD. The PUD was granted for purposes of building the condominium units. Only the PUD provides zoning for a swimming pool and recreation building. The Declaration never required the construction of a pool or recreation building anywhere in the PUD to serve the unit owners. The unit owners, by amending the Declaration, agreed and knew that the deleted isparcel could and would be developed for something other than condominiums, townhomes, a swimming pool or recreation building. By agreeing to the Amendment, unit owners waived their right to object to residential housing being constructed on this parcel of land at any time. We believe the application meets the standard of the above cited Paragraph and that the Planning Department has concurred in this opinion by recommending approval of our application to Amend the PUD. The Planning Commission denied the approval after hearing from unit owners who were objecting to the future use of land they do not own, individually or as an Association, nor to which they have a claim of use under the Condominium Declara- tion. The PUD is the only document that designates the land use. If the PUD is not amended to permit residential development, the land will always remain vacant and under -taxed, as no one will ever build a swimming pool or recreation building on this parcel of land. This is a valuable piece of real estate, as indicated by the attached schedule of lot prices Mr. Rodney Younge has placed on his adjoining development. 1] Common Council of the City of Rochester and Mr. Terry Adkins, Common Council Attorney August 21, 1995 Page 4 Ken Kinseth of Decorah, Iowa, owns twenty four townhome lots at the north end of the development. He stated to the.Planning Commission at the public hearing on July 25, 1995 that he had placed $21,000.00 in escrow to pay the taxes and assessments on Outlot A. He further stated that when he acquired Outlot A he would convey the parking lot to the Associations. Mr. Kinseth denied that he had agreed to the May 1, 1991 Amendment to Declaration. His written consent was given on July 9, 1991 and was recorded in August of 1991 together with the consent of all other owners and interested parties. If the Common Council does not amend the plan now because of Item 7 (Paragraph 61.146), how can it amend it. if Mr. Kinseth acquires the parcel and petitions the City for the same relief? Mr. Kinseth has stated that, if he acquired the land, he would give the Association the existing parking lot in exchange for its silence to his petition to amend the PUD. We do not believe the City of Rochester can even require a developer to grant land to it as a concession to gain rezoning. • The parcel is not part of the common area. It is owned by Wimbledon Hills, Inc., free • of the Condominium Declarations. No unit owner's property value will be adversely affected by granting our application to amend the PUD. if the PUD restrictions are not changed as proposed in our application, we believe our land would be confiscated by the City. We respectfully request that the Common Council approve our application which allow us to amend the PUD and replat the subject property into two lots for single family dwellings as indicated on the PUD Amendment Plan, and consider deleting the parcel from the PUD entirely on its own motion. Respectfully submitted Louis Krall, Presr ent WIMBLEDON HILLS, INC. Enclosures 0 I� d ���-r. le S 1 j If I�octt �` law I4IL1S Pun I Oft 1 ralm W;© 403 EAST CENTER STREET ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904-4612 (507) 281-6160 FAX # (507) 281-6165 • July 17, 1995 To: Rose Decklever Consolidated Planning . From: Denny Stotz Rochester Park and Recreation RE: Ammendment to PD R-93 (Wimbledon Hills Inc) Acerage......:............................ �w JUL 1 8 M LiT 1.15 acres Number of Dwelling Units............................................................... 2 Dwelling Unit Density....................................................................... .57 dwelling units/a DensityFactor............................................:..................................... .06 Dedication Requirement.................................................................. .07 acres Fair Market Value of Land .............................................. ............. $7,500/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 amount of $525 (.07 acres X $75001a). 0 Applicant: • C� 31 / 400o 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 ATTN: Rose Decklever REFERENCE: Amendment to Planned Unit Development R-93 by Wimbledon Hills, Inc., to allow the southerly portion of Outlot A of Wimbledon Hills Subdivision to be used for the site of two single family detached dwell- ings. The approved Planned Unit Development shows this area to be the site of a sw; mmi g pool and recreation building. Dear Ms. Decklever: Our review of the referenced amendment is complete and we comment as follow: 1. The property may be subject to assessments for the Baihly Heights High Level Water Tower. 2, Any existing water service that may have been extended into the outlot for a swim wing pool and recreation building should needs to abandoned according to current requirements. 3. Each of the single family dwellings need to be provided with individual water services. If there are questions, please contact us at 280-1505 Very truly yours, Harold R WobsdnB Senior Engineering Tecismcian Water Division 19 �- L-7 '`•r 4000 E. River Rd., N.E. Rochester, MN 55906-2813 507/280-1540 . FAX: 507/280-1542 507/280-1581 July 17, 1995 TO: Rose Decklever, Planning Division Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Roger Kanestadt, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Amendment to. Planned Unit Development R-93 by Wimbledon Hills, Inc., to allow the southerly portion of Outlot A of Wimbledon Hills Subdivision to be used for the site of two single family detached dwellings. The • approved Planned Unit Development site plan shows this area to be the site of a swimming pool .and recreation building. RPU's Power Division has no objection to this subject matter. Sincerely, Ar-) Roger Kanestadt ks • 33 T REC -�iG O S'ORN* 5"E�'.ERII REF SHT* STA. 12=68.19 (W! 0� CO (P4R HILLS, e STA. i, 4.98A (W M8LEDCh HILLS] G 4•t)0 (PRINAT1 DRIVE) O AIL a I&S 3S j Li T-711 Lij 1 -c: YI I pw-yy dF- . WO"*S POOL Fr W D 0 MAIN FLOOR AND POOL AREA i i i I � /if y l -- c£ . oz _. I V I i (3AI410IITAlad) C,?40 -;s1'11N NXTIGN M) 61'96.t I'V1$ I i CdAll - \ o S (9Nl 4 a'!a) 00 —O S1�IN N303,18 IM) 61'89+z1 v1S i i fd G11 #hs UG, L Ll 10 PUD MVIENDMENT F `AN PART OF OUTLOT 'A' WIMBLEDON HILLS f SCALE I" • 30' ------------� $ LOT 20 BLOCK 1 OUTLOT 'A' 40' WIMBLEDON HILLS s es tl er E --lusr-----"� m � FARCE A 21.114 1 I r F S0. , % FT. i 3 , PARCEL 6' r51 S =o Ca PROPOSED o- b SINGLE =5 �w 29 .187 S �• FT. I si ',• FAMILY DWELLING C� I 'ni I 40' 1 1 O_fR1uK �lf�T-1NA� •``` s 0 1 1 .M �e•llVe' M, � \ � GO II , 'Pq 4'C( Opp i E,,3.6. - WIMBLEDON HILLS DRIVE SOUTH{V \ ES T PROPERTY LOCATION MAP I HEREMY CERTIFY THAT TH13 SURVEY, PLAN. OR REPORT'WAS PREPARED By NE ON UNDER MT DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVETOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. , MONUMENTS Scale I, n 30' 0 Fwn! ' Del+ JULY 11, 1993 O Sat Drawn by,l6oj NOT SURVEYED DATE SURVEYED FOR. LOUIS KIIALL 311 0 RO 'HESTER , Ml'JNESOTA / i -REF. DETAIL SHT..8 FOR DETENSION PONDS R F. DETAIL SHT. 9 FOR GABION PLACEMA F o y 081 40°E 200 00. Page 8 2A City Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date: July 26. 1995 0 The motion carried with Ms. Haley and Mr. DeWitt voting against the motion. Amendment to Planned Unit Development R-93 by Wimbledon Hills. Inc., to allow the southerly portion of Outlot A of Wimbledon Hills Subdivision to be used for the site of two single family detached dwellings. The approved Planned Unit Development Site Plan 0*60 shows this area to be the site of a swimming pool and recreation buildine. Ms. Kansier presented the staff report dated July 21, 1995. She said the staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. The buildable area for the dwelling units is shown on the attached survey. Any structure on these lots must be located within this area and otherwise developed according to the R-1 standards. 2. The developer must submit homeowner's association documents or covenants for these lots which address the use and location of detached accessory buildings and the parking of recreational vehicles. These documents must have the same type of restrictions on these uses as the townhouse association documents. 3. A grading plan for each of the new dwelling units must be submitted and approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. This grading plan must indicate how it ties into the grading and drainage parterns for the existing development. 4. The parkland dedication requirements for this development must be satisfied by a cash dedication in lieu of land. . 5. Any existing water service that may have been extended into the area for a swimming pool and recreation building must be abandoned according to the current requirements. 6. Each of the single family dwellings must be provided with individual water services.. Ms. Kansier said the Commission will hear testimony about the legality of the request. She said there has been a lot of questions on who owns what and unpaid assessments and taxes. She said she had 2 comments: First the ownership of Outlot A is a legal question between the private property owners. Information that was given to staff shows this as a valid petition and that the applicant owns the property, and second the zoning ordinance cannot be used to force payment of back assessments and taxes. Anyone who chooses to develop the property would be faced with those issues. Ms. Schultze asked, in terms of property owners who possibly bought property thinking there would be a community room and pool, is that something the Commission needs to be concerned about or is it a legal issue. Ms. Kansier responded that it is a legal issue. All the documentation shows this portion of Outlot A. two single family residences, is not owned by any of the Association members. Obviously, she said there is a certain expectation. She said she did not know what the owners were shown and the Commission can take that into consideration as to how it affects the approved development. Mr. Louis Krall, representing the applicant Wimbledon Idills, Inc., said on May 1, 1991 an • amendment was recorded in Olmsted County that took this small parcel out of the Outlot and that q'/ 1 Page 9 V City Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date: July 26. 1995 it was signed by and consented by all the owners, lenders and anyone that had an interest in it at that time. It was decided a better use would be to go back to the R-1 zoning to two single family dwelling lots. Mr. Kenneth Kinseth, 136 Pleasant Dills Drive, Decorah, IA, said that he owns twenty-four lots in Wimbledon. He said the applicant said the property owners signed an amendment to the plan. He said that was not true. He said less than 50% of the property owners were there then and he said he can't find anyone that signed it. He said it is recorded in the bylaws that Wimbledon was to deed the Outlot to the condo and townhome association members and that has not been done. He said the applicant did record the southeast corner of Outlot A and he tried'to include the parking lot. He said the parking lot was built for use by the condo owners and he said he was sure there would be a lawsuit if this request happened. He said there are fees for lawnmowing, snowblowing and upkeep. He said the applicant has neglected to pay taxes on the outlot since 1989. He said the applicant has not used the people right and said he did not want anything built there that did not conform to the area. Mr. DeWitz said that the proposed application is legal. Ms. Schultze said the original agreement said that the outlots were to be deeded to the Townhouse Association. Mr. Kinseth is saying that agreement was never deeded to them and it should have been. Mr.Jack Huhnerkoch, 12 Conner Circle S.W., said the plan he saw when he went into the office when he was planning to buy was for a community building and a swimming pool, a park to take the little kids to, a recreational area. He said he did not think that it should be changed to homes He said the parking lot that is there gets used a lot. He said the property is also a catch basin for water. He said he would like the green area for trees, ponds and wildlife. He commented that the Commission probably looks at the application in regards to the law and how much taxes the City would get, but they should use their hearts in making a decision. He said the property owners. live there and they like it the way it is. He said the owners would like the property to be developed as an recreational area. He said there are so many legal issues that the Commission should make their decision with their hearts. Mr. Bob Tryggestad, 37 Conner Circle S.W., said that he was the first person to buy in the townhouse aspect of the development and he said he loves it there. He said there have been problems with the Wimbledon development. He said the proposal will affect all of the owners. He said they all understood that there would be recreational area. The property in the proposal is the only place the recreational area could be. He said the applicant is the central figure in the problems. He said it was unsettling to have someone default on their taxes. He said he would like to see the application denied. Ms. Anita Bartel, representing Condominium homeowners, asked staff for the location of the park that was near the development. II • Page 10 t� Ciry Planning and Zoning Commission ttt Hearing Date: July 26. 1995 . Ms. Kansier replied that it was a city park that was not fully developed yet on four acres of land. Ms. Bartel continued by saying the owners were expecting, in the near future, a recreational facility and she said they would all be disappointed if that did not happen. She commented on the narrow streets that you cannot park on. She said they had two cutouts in Conner Circle that are designated for the overflow parking and you could probably only get seven cars in there comfortably. She said that if each of the owners had two cars and there were 36 condos, they would need a lot of parking spaces. She said the parking lot is needed. She said if any of the owners have guests they need a place for them to park. She said if they lose that parking lot they will be handicapped. Mr. David Shulman, 49 Conner Circle S.W., gave a background of all the problems with the Wimbledon development. He explained that 0 the taxes for the development were placed on the common lot. The common lot dedication was for use by the people for recreation purposes. He said the applicant called out this parcel from the common area and induced people to sign a agreement that he could keep out this small parcel.. He precluded filing the deed. The common areas have never been deeded to the people. He said if the applicant loses the common area, due to foreclosure, it would be picked up by the people who have tried in good faith as dedicated property to the townhouse owners. He said to approve this request would be contrary to the declarations, contrary to the spirit and contrary to the interest of all the people who live there. He said the recreational space is a dedicated part of the property. The applicant is asking to make a change which is inconsistent with the development. • Mr. Tom Dacy, 70 Conner Circle S.W., said he didn't understand why the City was looking at this application when the property went back to the City because of non-payment of taxes. He said the applicant is asking the owners (who bought in good faith) to accept this request from someone who has stepped out of the total picture. He said if they had a developer in the area, they would rebuy the property back for the back taxes and deed it to the condo and townhome association members. He asked the Commission how they can take their time to look at a request that is so out of line. Mr. DeWitz replied because staff has brought it to the Commission as a legal application. Mr. Krall said that the amendment to the PUD taking this property out of the Outlot was recorded in 1991. It was recorded because they did a replat. The amendment kept the common area the same except for one lot that was divided into 2 lots in 1991. The owners at that time agreed to the change in the common area. Any owners after that time were aware that this parcel was out of the outlot and they had no interest in it. He said there was never a parking lot. He said that area is where the customers park that go into the sales office. Mr. DeWitz asked the applicant if the poolhouse was in the plan. . Mr. Krall said that the pool was not in the plan because they would not have been able to get FHA financing. He said no one was ever told there would be a swimming pool. He said Mr. • q;k Page 11 / City Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date: July 26. 1995 Kinseth signed the agreement on July 9,.1991. He said there has never been any question about who owned the parcel and that it was not part of the common area. Mr. DeWitz said the site plan shows a swimming pool. Mr. DeWitt closed the public hearing. Ms. Kansier said that the Commission has a copy of a letter from the Woodbridge Apartments stating their opposition to the proposal. Ms. Schultze asked if the parking lot was part of the approved PUD. Ms. Kansier said that the parking lot was never calculated for the residents need. She said the parking lot was for the community building, not for the overflow parking. Ms. Schultze asked staff to show where the parking cutouts were and Ms. Kansier showed the areas on the overhead screen. Mr. Beed asked if parking areas for the residents were in place and Ms. Kansier replied that two were in place that she knew of. Ms. Bartel explained that there were two cutouts for the townhouse and two cutouts for the condominiums. She said the condo area would be hurting. Mr. Bellinger said the plan has substantial change by eliminating the pool and said that it would be • hard to deny the application based on the wording in the standards. He said it is more a character concern. The Commission discussed the common areas in the Outlots. Ms. Haley said there are so many questions with the development. The parking spaces and the open spaces are both vague. She asked if it would be appropriate to table the request. Mr. DeWitz said that the Commission needed to act in 60 days. He said the problems could take a long time to get settled. Mr. Beed asked what controls the use of the property - the site plan or the legal description. Mr. Suk said this was a very complicated issue. Staff has indicated that the applicant is the legal, owner of the property. He said he would be hard pressed to deny. Ms. Schultze said she thought there was a substantial change in the plan from the approved Phase 1 site plan. She said the open, common space was part of the PUD plan and she said that was part of the reason why the owners purchased their property. 1] Page 12� City Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date: July 26. 1995 • Mr. Beed said he thought the owners anticipated recreational uses on that site somewhere. Mr. Bellinger asked what criteria was not met. Ms. Haley said that Criteria #7 applies to this application because the substantial change is the removal of recreational area - Mr. Bellinger moved to deny the amendment to Planned Unit Development R-93 (Wimbledon Hills) to allow the addition of two single family homes. Ms. Haley seconded the motion. The motion carried with Mr. Suk and Mr. DeWitz voting against the motion. Ms. Kansier presented&staff report dated July 20, 1995. She said staffmmended approval of the request with the fo g conditions: • 1. The petitioner must provide al descriptions for all of the n sary easements to protect the existing and planned public ut 2. The petitioner must submit a NStre r the private stre ch specifically addresses the connection to the existing 36tt-of-way. s design must be approved by the City Public Works Department. Mr. Bill Tointon, representative for the Mr. Sulk made a motion to Mr. Beed seconded the m9 to answer questions. ive the petiti o vacate #95_12 by Lowell Pent The motion carlkd unanimously. Mr.ysp ed the staff report dated July 19, 1995. He said theappf the request with the following condition: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION )N; ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ment to ment Change the Use of the Building to a Professional Office August 17, 1995 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: to i, MEETING DATE: K21i95 ,v% lane Kansier. The City Planning and Zoning Commission reconsidered this amendment at the request of the Council at a public hearing on August 9, 1995, The Planning Commission specifically reviewed the concerns related to the previous conditions of approval limiting the number of employees to 12, and the use of the building as a professional law office only. At the hearing, Mr. Robert Adams testified that he would like the Commission to uphold the original conditions of approval, limiting the number of employees and the use as a law office. He commented that the proposed changes would cause parking and traffic problems in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission reviewed a list of office uses prepared by the staff. The Commission found that the list of proposed professional office uses seemed appropriate for that location. The Commission also discussed the limitation on the number of employees, and agreed with the applicant that the number of employees should be limited to the equivalent of one full time employee for each 300 square feet of office floor area in the building. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this amendment, subject to the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation open to the public must be limited to 7.30 am to 6:00 pm. 2. The parking lot must be striped todelineate the off street parking spaces. 3. The premises maybe occupies by a "professional of ice:' limited to the uses suggested by the Planning staff in a letter to Mr. Grinde dated July 18, 1995. 4. That the number of employees in the building be limited to no more than the equivalent of one full time employee per three hundred (300) square feet of office floor area in the building. 5. No retail sales or manufacturing is to take place on the premises. 6. No 18 wheel truck deliveries are to be made to this site. Motion by Bellinger to recommend approval of the Amendment to PUD B-78 with the above conditions; second by Suk. The motion carried 4-2 (Schultze and McGowan voting no). Zoning Administrators Action and Report: On August 10, 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 111, Phase II PUD Amendment for a public hearing as required under the provisions of Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of this site on Friday, August 11, 1995, and a notice of the hearing was published in the Friday, August 11, 1995, edition of the Rochester Post -Bulletin. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second p Page 2 RCA j� August 17, 1 g (V Council Action Needed: If the Council wishes to proceed with the proposed amendment, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare Attachments: 1. Staff Reports dated July 31, 1995 2. Staff Report dated June 7, 1995 3. Letter from Adjacent Property Owner Zank 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 Council Chambers at City Hall. a August 21, 1995, in the C J � 1 � m `Qo i _-- ST.— N.W. VACA6 /2 ?! VGC4TE0 11 =3-T3------ I I W i I t z---- 10O -- -- 6PC L _ I • I Oe _ 17 ST NA - - 16 ST •-.,. _ Sol 16 ST. N. N. EmMgo- 15 ST N.W. asa" tiros } Z .630 .. - ,:I.. ,. n_ 3 uj 1626- _ - ne- was 14 ST N W LaJ cm o F r[eMery I :G,• � - 1)In� :�00 nIr` Iw �Gln •ems a �• l■le- 1•ee: lid Gel - ,)IC- ICOt .i_' - iif40l, n■r _ fete- _ n■ec .w �■a M fG{�. IIOf ele- law Iel-•e:e. lol/telei > - e+ee-�wf . •Me leh lele■ � � 1 12 ST N. W. Gee'- t31 - +.aa- me• Nee !•{e.11.wi = _' lea- •w{- _ ..,.. Gres'. Ln. •�eo ilShlPe� w- • . let. let- iGae• vw p - - - • ' 1e •eel i S ; n e i 0,0C VIE S. TEIt.N� R'�TF.D•Al'GC55'- ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PANNING DEPARTMENT 21122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 -DMINISTRAT7ON/ 5071/285-8232 TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission °LANNING -cuSWG,NRA 507'285-322- FROM: Terry A. Spaeth, Planner DING CODE 507285-82!-- :JEL:SEPTIC 507'285-8345 DATE: July 31, 1995 RE: PUD Amendment # 95-3 to amend the approved Cir Kit Concepts PUD (B- 78) by Paul Grinde & James Ryan On June 14, 1995 the City Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider an amendment to the PUD. At that time, the Commission recommended approval with several conditions (see 6/14/95 CPZC Minutes). The Council held a public hearing on this item on July 5, 1995 and approved the proposed PUD Amendment subject to the same conditions that the Planning Commission recommended. The applicant then requested that the Counci reconsider their decision and the Council again reviewed this item on July 17, 1995. At that time, the discussion centered on 2 conditions recommended for approval by the CPZC as follows: 1. That the premises be occupied by a professional law office only. 2. That the law firm be limited to not more than 12 employees. After discussing this issue, the Council requested that this item be remanded back to the CPZC for further review to determine what other types of "professional office" types of uses may be appropriate for that site, and to determine if a limitation on the number of employees is necessary. The staff has prepared a list of professional office uses which the Commission may want to review to determine if they, along with other professional office uses may be appropriate for that location, and specify them in the form of a condition of approval. (See attached list). In order to bring this item back to the Commission, we have renotified adjacent property owners that this item will be reviewed as a public hearing. It will then be forwarded to the Council for a public hearing. Attachments: 0 r� f`J - AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held on Wednesday, June 14, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. at the Government Center, CounciUBcard Chambers, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN. Members Present: Ms. Christine Schultze, Mr. Don Beed, Mr. Jim Suk, Mr. Bob DeWitz, Chair, Ms. Dorothy Haley, Ms. Nancy Richardson, Mr. Tom Bellinger, Vice Chair Members Absent: Ms. Diane McGowan, Ms. Lisa Wiesner Staff Present: Ms. Rose Decklever, Mr. Terry Spaeth, Planner, Mr. Phil Wheeler, Director ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS: Mr. DeWitz, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Schultze made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 24, 1995, noting that Ms. Wiesner "was not present" at the meeting. Ms. Richardson seconded the motion. The minutes from May 24, 1995 were approved unanimously. Mr. Spaeth noted that under "Other Business" there should be discussion added regarding the meeting scheduled for June 28, 1995. It was the consensus of the Commission that the agenda was OX with the additional discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Spaeth presented the staff report dated June 7, 1995, He stated that in 1984 a Planned Unit Development was applied for and approved for this property. He stated that the applicants are looking to turn this PUD into an office use. CIrKt Concepts PUD is proposed to go from an findustriaf type of use to an 'office' type of use. He stated that the exterior facade will not be changed, only minor changes w6 be done to the interior. There are 14 on -site spaces for this property. He stated that offices are permitted in residential districts, although offices in residential areas require twice as much parking. Mr. Spaeth explained the adaptive reuse parking requirements. He addressed the signage noting that it would be a 24 square foot sign that would include Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes / Hearing Date: June 14, 1995 a brick planter. The PUD Amendment review is what would be used to review conditional uses. Mr. Spaeth stated that staff would recommend approval with two conditions. Mr. Bellinger stated that the applicant did not state hours of operation, why are they being proposed. Mr. Spaeth stated that staff is suggesting what has been set forth in the Land Development Manual for hours of operation. Mr. Paul Grinde, 1519 10 St. NE, and Mr. Jim Ryan, St. Charles MN, stated that they would stripe the parking lot. He noted that he is very rarely in the office before 6:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. He stated that they are comfortable with 6:00-9:00 office hours. But on occasion they may need to be there after those hours if they are preparing for a case. Mr. Spaeth stated that the hours are for the "normal business functions'. Robert Adams, 1412 14th Avenue NW, read a letter that he received. He stated that they have been quite involved in this area when this property became a manufacturing site. He stated that there was no garage in there, and the neighbors fought to keep the garage size down. The parking has been all over the street He stated that he does not want hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Children congregate in this area and the hours should be limited Mr. John Kingsley, 1417 4 Avenue NW, lives north of the property. He stated that the biggest thing are the hours. He stated that Crenlo is located to the north, a day care to the south and morning and late night traffic is enough. He asked how much ground do the neighbors have to stand on. The less stringent that we are with this property, the more often we have to come back to these meetings. Mr. DeWitz stated that the applicants are purchasing the building. He stated that if there is any problem with the attomeys being there, the Commission could shorten the business hours. He noted that the Planning Commission recommends to the Council and at the Council there will be another public hearing. Mr. Kingsley asked to have the rules and regulations that were approved from the previous application in 1984 be included with this application. Mr. Spaeth noted that there was an amendment in 1988, but the conditions had hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 P.M. Mr. Kingsley asked who enforces the rules. Mr. Seed stated that if there is a problem, that would be reported to the Planning Department and they would investigate and put the property in violation and the City Attorney would handle that problem. E Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: June 14, 1995 Mr. DeWitz commented that since 198 of buildings (churches). zoning ordinance has changed to allow more changes to take care of these type Mr. Spaeth stated that there were six conditions of the original PUD. He addressed those conditions. Mr. DeWitt stated that those conditions would not pertain to a law office. as its Mr. Spaeth stated that the Commission is looking at this specific piece of property own zoning district. Mr. John Allman, 1506 4 Avenue NW, asked about complaints being filed from the previous use (CirKit Concepts). omplaints were reported for late hours. Mr. Spaeth stated that several c hours not Mr. Allman stated that these are not enforced, complaints are given, but there is nothing enforced. He stated that there was an 18 wheeler at this grope , enforced, etc. He feels that 6:00 a.m to 9:00 p•m. is too long. He stated that if there are violations, but they just continue. No one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request Mr. DeWltz closed the public hearing. • Ms. Richardson asked how many employees would be at this office. Mr. Grinde stated 2 attorneys, a paralegal, and two secretaries, for a total of five people. ncern of hours, would 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 P.M. work? Ms. Haley asked about the co Mr. Grinde stated they open at 7:30 a.m. He stated that he is willing to have limitations, He can understand the but if he has a conference with a client he does not want to cut that short He state that this office would be a less intense use for this property. hours would not be a concerns, but with a law at a time. He does see dents at nighrotolem. We cannot fit their scheduleseeHe more than one p stated that he does not want to set this up for someone to complain about. Mr. Grinde stated 30. But secretary is there frm 7-30 to 4:30 and most everyone he does of want it limited if someone has to be seen nlt the of the office by early evening. Mr. Ryan stated that if they are preparing for a trial. they need to use the office. stated that he would hate to see the neighbors complaining because a light is on a and a car is in the lot and then they put them in violation. Mr. Suk stated that if -open to the Publie is inserted it would solve the problem. Page 4 City Planning and Zonitig Commission Minutes Hearing Date: June 14. 1995 Mr. Bellinger stated that there are fifteen offices on the proposed layout He asked if this should be limited. Mr. Grinde stated that was put in because our architect has to put every partition that may be in that building on the plans. He stated that he does not see those offices filled. Mr. Bellinger asked if they could limit the employees. Mr. Ryan stated that a 12 employee limit would be all right. Ms. Richardson asked about occupancy of the building. Mr. Spaeth stated that was limited that only Ryan and Grinde Law office could be in there. The Commission could propose that they cannot lease office space. Mr. Bellinger moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase 11 Planned Unit Development Amendment #95-3 with the following conditions: The hours of operation open to the public for this use must be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 2. That the parking lot be striped to delineate the off-street parking spaces. 3. That the premises be occupied by a professional law office only. 4. That the law firm be limited to nor more than 12 employees. 5. No retail sales or manufacturing is to take place upon the premises. 6. Nola Wheel truck deliveries are to be made to the site. Ms. Richardson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. VACATION Mr. Spaeth presented the staff report dated June 7. 1995. He stated that thane are no current needs for the right of way. but a utiirdy easement would have to be granted. Mr. Suk moved to recommend approval of Vacation Petition #95-79 seconded by Ms. Schultze. The motion carried unanimously. • • 0 0 July 18, 1995 Ryan & Grinde, Ltd. Attention: Paul Grinde Suite 219, Marketplace Center PO Box 6667 Rochester, MN 55903-6667 Fax Number. 282-2275 RE: Professional Office Uses Dear Mr. Grinde: f 4pCXESTER•y� VOW RA TED-i CGISt-� ROC HESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATIOW PLANNING HOUS%NG/HRA SUILC WG CODE WEL-SEPTIC 507r285-8232 507'285-8224 507 285-8213 507235.8345 You requested that the Planning staff send you a list of what might be considered 'professional office, uses. The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual defines an office as follows: Office: A room or group of rooms utilized for managing the affairs of an establishment or for the non -retail, non -production conduct of affairs of a service, professional institution or business nature. The Planning staff reviewed this definition and considered your circumstances. In this instance, we would suggest that the following be considered as 'professional offices': • Law offices • Insurance Agency offices • Accountants offices . • Planning/ArchitecturaUEngineering Services offices • Computer Consultant offices • Marketing/Advertising offices • Real Estate Leasing offices • Appraisal offices • Financial Consultants/Stock Brokers (this does not include banks) • Personal Consultants • Political Consultants • Charity or Non -Profit offices In general, the common factor with all of these uses is that there is a relatively small amount of customer traffic generated on the site, and most of the traffic is by appointment Since one of the major concerns at this site is traffic and parking, it seems reasonable to limit the uses to low traffic generators. If you have any questions, please contact our office at 285-8232. Sincerely, one A Kansier, CP Planner c: Mac Evans AN EOUAL OPPORTUNn17AFFIRMATNE ACTION EMPLOYER 0 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Terry A. Spaeth, PlanneF75' DATE: June 7,1995 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS OR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING HCUSINGrHPA 507/285-822- BUILDING CODE 507/285-B213 WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 RE: Amendment to PUD B-78 (CirKit Concepts) to change the existing use to Ryan & Grinds Law Offices . Plannina Department Review: Applicant(s): Paul Grinde & James Ryan P.O. Box 6667 Rochester, MN 55903 Architects: Kim Portz Architect 1903 South Broadway Rochester, MN 55904 Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (1 letter) 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Application 4. Site Plan and Proposed Floor Plans 5. Signage Detail Plan Plan Summary: PUD B-78 (CirKit Concepts) is an R-1 PUD which is located at the northwest comer of 4th Avenue NW and 14th Street NW. The site was originally a church, and the PUD to change to the commecial use was approved in 1984. The site area consists of 18,352 square feet, and the commercial floor area consists of 6016 square feet. At this time, the applicant is proposing an amendment to the approved PUD which would permit the establishment of a professional law office upon the property, replacing the approved PUD. Amendment Summary: Access: This site is adjacent to both 14th Street NW and 4th Avenue NW, and driveway access to the property is 0 0 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 PUD Amendment June 7, 1995 • from 14th Street NW. Proposed Use, The proposed use consists of conversion of the building to accomodate a professional office building. This entails interior alterations to the structure, but no exterior alterations are proposed at this time. Parking: The property contains 14 off street parking spaces that meet LDM requirements. Offices in commercial zoning districts require 1 off street parking space 400 sq. ft. floor area. Offices in residential districts typically require 1 off street parking space 1200 sq. ft. floor area. The proposed use has 4700 sq. ft. floor area for off street parking purposes. In this instance, an Adaptive Reuse process could have permited the office upon the property if the Cir Kh Concepts use had not been established as a PUD upon the property. As an Adaptive Reuse, the parking would need to meet comercial zoning district off street parking requirements. In that case, 12 off street parking spaces would be required. Signage: The applicant's are proposing a two sided 20 square foot ground business sign with a planter to be located south of the building, in the front yard along 14th . Street NW to replace the existing 16 square fool ground business sign. No other signs are proposed at this time. Analysis: When the current Zoning Ordinance and land Development Manual was adopted in 1992, it eliminated the planned unit development provisions. The manual, however, does provide for amendments to an existing PUD. Paragraph 60.326 states that amendments to a PUD shall be processed through the Type III, Phase II hearing process, and the applicable criteria for incentive or restricted development shall be used in the evaluation of the proposed change. In this case, the proposed use does not meet the R-1 Restricted Development criteria of the Land Development Manual in regard to commercial floor area ratio. However, there is no change in floor area from the original Cir Kit Concepts PUD, which was approved by the Common Council in 1984. It also must be noted that if the property had not previously been rezoned to a PUD, under the Land Development Manual this request could be reviewed as a Type II Adaptive Reuse Restricted Development, that does not have specific floor area ratio requirements for a proposed use. Review Criteria: Amendments to an existing PUD are processed according to the regulations applicable to a conditional use permit. Paragraph 61.146 lists the standards for conditional use permits as follows: 0 / 45z,p Page 3 PUD Amendment June 7, 1995 51.146 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. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in • the Phase a 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. 61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing 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 61.146. Staff Review and Recommendation: The Planning staff has reviewed this request based on the above criteria. The staff finds that this proposal is generally consistent with the above criteria. The staff, however, recommends that the following conditions or modifications be made to the plan prior to final approval: 1. The hours of operation for this use must be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 2. That the parking lot be striped to delineate the off street parking spaces. 0 ROChzSTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAR .ENT 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER. MN 55.904 FAX (507) 287-2275 0 Date: June 1, 1995 To: Agencies Indicated Below -FfOm� Rose Decklever, Planning Department 571 Subject: Type III, Phase II, Planned Unit Development Amendment #95-3 by Ryan and Grinde Ltd. to amend the existing PUD B-78 (Circuit Concepts) to permit the use of the property as a law office. The property is located at 407 14th Street NW. This application is scheduled for consideration by the City Planning and Zoning Commission on June 14, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. In order for the Planning Department to prepare a thorough review of this application, we would appreciate receiving your comments by June 7, 1995. You may also appear at the meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Agencies County Agencies Other Agencies 1. Public Works 11. Health Department 19. School Board Richard Freese Rich Peter Eartene Wicker 2. Fire Department 12. Public Works 20. Peoples Natural Gas . Lyle Felsch 13. County Assessor Mark Ernst 3. Crime Prevention Dan Hall 21. US West M. Seidel, Gov. Center 14. County Auditodrreasurer Dean Erdmann 4. RPU Electric Division Karen Cocker 22. TCI Communications Roger Kanestadt 15. County Recorder 23. MN DOT 5. RPU Water Division 16. Div. of Inspections, Well, Dale Grove Harold Wobschall Septic S Building Code 24. Post Office S. Park 6 Recreation Mr. French Denny Stotz 17. Pollution Control Agency - Building 8 25. MN DNR 7. Building.. Wees .�N�j 18. Township Jim Cooper Des 26. Soil Conservation Dept. 8. City A mey Dave Copeland Dave Goslee Laurie Hassler 9. Downtown Dev. DisL 27. Peoples troop Doug Knott Rick WeBick , 10. City Administrotdr - Dave Olson Pz 5r3'lzrtati totes a A-3 (as - a B (bueitrssj... State Hiudzag bode. Q7i�7v+e plwna� _ ••. -- re,,; a1-arnil - Y , SltB . axe se 23rrd to be - a All current code rPQ•**HIE[its NC1 _ RKs DEPARTMENT,.CITY ENGINEER: PLEASE INDICATE IF'TNE 1CATION IS CORRECT IF THE ATTACHED 13 A PLAT. J zPPI TYPE III, PHASE 11 DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ROCHESTER �N MAY 3 1 19Z l The undersigned hereby makes application for a Type III DevelopnW79-a3--� regulated by Section 60.530 of the City of Rochester Land Development Manual. NAME OF APPLICANT. Paul H. Grinde and James P. Ryan, Jr. ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: P.O. Box 6667, Rochester, MN 55903-6667. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (home) (507) 281-2831 (work) (507) 282-8118 SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached REASON FOR APPLICATION: (please describe in detail if applicable) • To amend the present PM to allow for the use of the premises as an office building DATE: May 22, 1995 Respectfully Submitted. Submittal Instructions (see attached) Return Application to: DISTRIBUTION: Planning Department (blue) City Clerk (white) Applicant (yam) 4_7 Form #IM3 t. Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN. 55904 0 Ryan & Grinde, Ltd. wttomeys at Law 0 0 James P. Ryan, Jr. Paul H. Grinds Kristine L. Dicke Wayne L. Mehkkens HAND DELIVERED May 30, 1995 Please Reply To: ❑ 313 West Sixth Street Post often Box 56 St. Charles, Minnesota SS972-0056 (507) 932-4461 MR TERRY SPAETH ROCHESTER OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 Dear Mr. Spaeth: Suite 219, Marketplace Center Post Otliics Box 6667 Rochester, Minnesota 55903-6667 (507)282-8113 C9� q'� ! MAY 3 1 G% Enclosed please find the documents you requested be provided with regard to .our PUD Amendment request. The purpose of our seeking an amendment to the present PUD is to locate our law office on the premises. As we discussed, I believe you have the bulk of the information needed in your file on this building. I assume the information supplied today and the contents of your file meets the requirements you forwarded to me. If you need additional information please let me know and I will supply it to you at. my earliest convenience. The outside of intend that our l as Cir-Kit's sic from the grounder the building will be viunil hange.d.= '- sign in front be in th----a "� rwcimarte l ere may be Page 2 _ May 30. 1995- our architect will be unable to attend so I will attend as may / Mr. Ryan.. Please advise of the date, time and place of the meeting. My understanding is that it will be on June 14, 1995. Thank you.. Very truly yours, RYAN & GRINDE/LTD. t/paul H. Grinde Attorney At Law PHG/ldg Enclosures E 11 u 9 u •iav ®nueA8 419r r 43 • V 6 qQ Y y y Y•> 4 • Y q S • Y 6 • � Y p Y � m d Y• Y V Y Y Y Y e Y 4 Y � Y Y Y H G Y PS Y H O q Y • • Y lieu La • G I � o P E I 11« JL 08.02-95 11:39 4 qr { G i Q TA a i r From: Joel &.Cindy Zank 424 14th St. N.W. Rochester, MN 55901 To: Rochester Planning Committee He: Property at 407 14til St. N.W.. Rochester, MN Dear Ladies and Gentleman of our Rochester Planning Committee, My name is Joel Zank. My wife Cindy and l thank you for your attention and concern regarding the property at 407 14th St. N.W. here in town. Cindy and I live across from this piece of property and have been following with interest its recent sale and its intended use as a law office. ;It is our feeling that those managing a law office wil no doubt take pride in their property and will maintain it in such a way as to attract c`ientele. We see this as something beneficial to our neighborhood. Cindy and I appreciate, and are in agreement with, the restrictions that have been put in place by the Planning Committee: limiting the number of cars parked on and around this property, the owner's business hours, etc. It is our desire to see these restrictions kept in place. We are not in favor of having the property across from us designated as a "Professional Building." To us, this would seem to be a very general term that would permit the building to be used for any number of purposes, either now or in the future, without the input of its neighbors. We would prefer to see the building used by its owner for one designated purpose. If, in the future, that purpose must change, we would appreciate the opportunity to revisit the issues of restrictions, intended use, etc. at that time. Again, thank you for your .,me and attention regarding a matter that ,s very important to us, Sincerely, Joel M. nk Cindy S. Zank T7 7 Fill l t01 TED PLANNINGI)EPARTMEYT • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING G 71 DATE: EZ/AS 4 4 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. tot4-rtnluEp 45i-CIM61 Public Works 8 —? TEM DESCRIPTION: Project 9106-95 J-9353 Sanitary Sewer in PREPARED BY: 23rd Ave. SW Kac�Gillivray r, 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 5th Street SW from 500 Feet East to 650 Feet West of 23rd Avenue SW11 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. 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: 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 Watermain Service Connections Engineering Interest Contingency Total $115,000 107,500 19,200 29,000 19,300 24,200 $314,200 0 11 61 • 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 I. 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 8% Contingency lOg Total Construction & Expense Distribution To be Presently Assessed Postponed Assessment TOTAL Final Project Budget Contract Cost $115 000 107,500 19,200 29,000 19,300 24,200 $314 200 $33 600 :D MI $314 200 Make Initial Disbursement from P.I.R. Fund • 0 SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IN 23RD AVENUE S. W. / l 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. 4JD IN CATES DRIVE S. W. FROM 23RD AVENUE S. W. TO 200 FEET WEST. N ESTIMATED COST $314, 200 PROJ. NO. 9106-95 J-9353 0 150 300 LEGEND SCALE: 1' = 300' PROPOSED 8" WATERMAIN — — — — — — — PROPOSEO 8' SANITARY SEWER — • — • — • — miw my ,- °°'°' m.0 G.L. mrm 2 4TH 3oe'wi aw.m e�eu'wa ST m.� va ma. mw S.W. • �0 m a maoo am a°im mm I �0 a� 3 I• � 9 a.n I ❑.L. etc asm u� w® else Ld o,mn STH — _ _ST —�_ (' •� S.W. 20 21 2 N II f 1 I 1 oiaOm 1 24 a x om uiw 23 w II dry 27 26 25 1• - Jl as 33. 01� a.ze wzo anm 32 S� aom 3s o m 34 �R GATES E 37 AUG 02 '95 11:1!AM MAYO ENVIPONMENTAL SWETY � —+�•• < ROCHEST k. QAVID H. SENJEM C:'4_ ix-Mit MerOEf Siow -- 2e13 i3fn Avenue NMI. Bea f$C:1 363.7d�6 FRIENDS AND CONSTITUENTS: aaetiewa..,AN 5!"l 6vt IS771 26e.6670 AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, THERE IS A.PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 7 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS TO TAKE TESTRvtONY ON THE PROPOSED SEWER/WATER EXTENSION TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THE MEETING STARTS AT 7PM IN CITY HALL AID I WOULD URGE ALL OF YOU TO ATTEND AND OFFER YOUR OPINION, FOR OR AGAINST. 1 ALSO WANT TO IN'%TIE EACH OF YOU TO LET ME KNOW OF YOUR FEELINGS ON TEES MATTER A CALL OR A NOTE WOULD BE FINE. SOME OF YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS. THE C='S POLICY ON SEWER/WATER INSTALLATIONS IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS HAS CHANGED. WHAT I WANT TO TRY TO DO IN THIS LETTER IS TO EXPLAIN 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 AREAS 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 MESS AND UNTIL YOU OR THE NEXT OWNER VOLUNTARILY REQUESTS TO CONNECT. (THIS IS A CHANGE FROM THE OLD POLICY WHERE CHARGES WERE MADE AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER REGARDLESS OF TEE NEED OR II=EST IN THESE SERVICES. UNDER THIS PROGRAM TIM 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 WISFTSIG TO lov=U1TELY CONNECTMAY DO SO AND BE CHARGED NO INTIUtEST ON THEIR ASSES24ENT. 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 2WO, THAT PERSON WOULD BE CHARGED 3 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 MAXIMUM OF S80 PER FRONT FOOT CHARGED ON WATERISEWER ASSESSMENTS. IF THE COST COMES IN AT MORE THAN THIS NUMBER THE BALANCE IS PAID BY THE CITIZENS OF ROCIFIESTEX 5. 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 TT. THE ADVANTAGE OF THM PROPOSAL FOR YOU IS THAT SSWER/WATER WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR YOU OR A FUTURE OWNER OF YOUR PROPERTY TO CONNECT TO 7 THERE WAS EMMR A NEED OR DESIRE ALONG WITH THIS, THE OTHER ADVANTAGE FOR YOU IS THAT YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE UNTIL YOU WANT TO USE IT. IF YOU NEVER USE IT THERE IS NO CHARGE TO YOU. IN EFFECT, THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY WOULD BE OFFERING YOU AN INSURANCE POLICY SHOULD YOU EVER HAVE NEEDS FOR CITY SERVICES. AGAIN, CHARGES WOULD BE MADE AT THE TIME YOU OR A F num OWNER OF YOUR PROPERTY WANTED THE SERVICE. 0 HUB jZ .t . 11n11 ilw,. E�IVIFQNNIE`I(HL 6m Eii P.3 / 73 • THE DISADVANTAGES OF THIS PROPOSAL (ASIDE FROM TEARING UP THE STREET) SM4 FEW ALTHOUGH I REALLY WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU IF YOU HAVE SOME ONE IS TIMING. IF YOU DIDN'T WANT SERVICES NOW BUT THOUGHT YOU MIGHT IN S YEARS IT WOULD SAVE YOU SOME INTEREST IF THE PROJECT WERE DELAYED' I WOULD SAY THAT AT THIS TDa THE CITY IS WILLING AND ABLE TO PUT THE SERVICES IN AND CARRY Tim DEBT UNTIL THE SERVICES ARE WANTM AND AN ASSESSMENT IS MADE. THAT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE WITH DECLINING STATE AND FEDERAL BUDGhTS. AGAIN. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND I REALLY WANT TO HEAR FROM EACH OF YOU. I WOULD ADD THAT THE COUNCIL VOTED LAST MEETING TO PROVIDE SEWER/WATER SERVICES TO 7I ST STREET NE BETWEEN HIGHWAY 63 AND EAST RIVER ROAD. THE SAME PROPOSAL WAS OFrMM THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT SEENIED TO GET, AT LEAST, GENERAL ACCEPTANCE BASED ON THE 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 BAD SEPTIC, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT LENDING INSTITUTIONS WERE NOT INTERESTED IN PUTTING LOANS AGAINST THAT KIND OF A PROPERTY WTTiOUT EITHER A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM OR THE ABILITY TO CONNECT TO CITY SERVICES. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THIS IS THAT IT MAY `JOT ALWAYS BE POSSIBLE TO REPLACE A FAILED SEPTIC SYSTEM. THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE AND THE MINNBSOTA POLLUTTON CONTROL AGENCY ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING NEW RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE AND WHEN THESE UNITS CAN BE INSTALLED. THANKS SO MUCH FOR MT:REST IN THIS MATTER I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IT IS BOTH AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE TO REPRESENT YOU ON THE ROCHESTER CITY COUNCIL AND THAT YOU SHOULD FEEL FREE TO CALL OR WRITE ME WITH ANY • PROBLEM OR CONCERN YOU MAY HAVE. BEST WISHES. DAVID H. SENMA COUNCILNMMM 6TH WARD 0 RE, JEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4 DATE: 2 1 PUBLIC HEARING Land Use Plan Amendment Street SW April 13, 1995 .APPLICATION HISTORY PLANNING on the west side of Highway 63 ITEM NO. g' S PREPARED BY: Jeffrey Ellerbusch, Pia"ate i�r; The applicant. N.A. Realty Inc., Franklin P. Kottschade, President. originally filed a Land use Plan Amendment (File #94-6) and a Zoning District Change (File #94-40) on November 28, 1994. The original petitions were scheduled for consideration at a public hearing before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on December 14, 1994. The staff reports to the City Planning and Zoning Commission dated December 9, 1994, evaluated the initial proposal which was to redesignate 97.69 acres as "Commercial" on the Future land Use Map and rezone from R-1 to B-4 (General Commercial) 7432 acres and redesignate 120.95 acres on the Plan for "Medium Density Residential" use and rezone to R-3 109.06 acres. At the hearing on December 14, 1994, the City Planning and Zoning Commission agreed to reschedule consideration of the matter until a later date (up to 60 days) at the request of the applicant. On January 25, 1995, at the request of the applicant, the Commission extended the date of the reconsideration until February 22, 1995. On February 8, 1995. the City Planning Commission agreed to reconsider the request on March 8, 1995, at the specific request of the applicant. In a letter submitted to the City Planning and Zoning Commission dated February 3, 1995, the applicant amended the original petition by withdrawing the portion of the application concerning the "medium density" Land Use Plan Amendment and the rezoning from R-1 to R-3. j On March 8, 1995, at a public hearing the City Planning Commission considered the revised request to designate 97.69 acres as "commercial' on the Future Land Use Map and rezone 74.32 acres of this area from R- 1 to B-4. The staff evaluated this revised request in a report to the City Planning Commission dated March 3. 1995. At the hearing on March 8, 1995, the applicant through testimony from Mr. John Uban, his land planning consultant revised the boundaries of the area proposed to be designated for commercial by dropping the area northerly of Willow Creek. Without the benefit of survey the staff estimates that the revised proposal would reduce the area proposed to be designated commercial by 8.16 acres for a total of 89.53. The applicant requested that the rezoning petition not be acted on at this time. The Commission moved to table the zone change request from R-1 to B-4 until their first meeting in June (June 14,.1995). The action of the Commission was then focused only on the land use plan amendment 994-6 to designate the property for commercial land use. WWWORS153 larT6,1115 nalla • u lu 1 RM L1105 o After the close of the public hearing on March 8, 1995, the City Planning and Zoning Commission moved to request that the City Attorney prepare findings of fact concerning the land use plan amendment to support the proposition that the request does not meet the four criteria found in the text of the Land Use Plan for a regional ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: :'age 2 �j� RCA II�Ri// April 13, 1995 shopping center. The substantial size of the requested commercial area by definition in the text. of the Future Lane Plan disqualified the proposal from being considered as a neighborhood (4 to 8 acres) or communio, shopping center (1 to 25 acres). On March 22, 1995, the City Planning and Zoning Commission considered the findings of fact prepared by the Citc Attorney, a copy of which was prodded to the applicant prior to the meeting. The City Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-2 to adopt the findings recommending denial of the land use plan amendment. Motion b- McGowan, seconded by Schultze. Voting in favor - McGowan. Schultze, Bellinger, Haley and Richardson. Voting against - Wiesner and DeWitt. A copy of the findings as adopted was sent by certified mail to the applicant. The Commission, in their consideration of the findings and the locational criteria against which the proposal was evaluated, noted that if the recernmendations of the US 63 Corridor Study, would result in Thoroughfare Plan amendments to reclassify he Street SW as an arterial, a reconsideration of a commercial designation on this site or a portion thereof could be made based on new information. The City Planning and Zoning Commission also noted that the criterion of having good pedestrian, vehicular and transit access would also be subject to reevaluation based on possible future improvements that would accompany actual development in the area. Until an area develops, there is not generally good transit or pedestrian access. . PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIENNV The attached reports dated December 9, 1994, and March 3, 1995, outline the facts and issues surrounding the proposals as submitted. Please keep in mind that presently only Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 as amended is t consideration and the rezoning request is not being considered at this time. A map showing the boundary o , e commercial redesignation request as revised by the applicant at the public hearing is also attached. COUNCIL ACTION NEEDED 1. The City Clerk scheduled this Land Use Plan Amendment for a public hearing as required. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of this site and published in the Rochester Post Bulletin on Friday, April 7, 1995. 2. After the close of the hearing, the Council should, by motion, instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the consensus decision reached by the Council. After presentation of the prepared findings by the City Attorney, the Council should move to adopt the findings. 3. If the findings adopted are to approve an amendment to the plan, the Council should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution officially amending the Land Use Plan Map. . 4. The Land Use Plan states that no application for an amendment will be accepted prior to one year after the date that any application concerning the same property was acted upon by the City Council. If the action is to deny the request. the Council may wish to specify under what conditions it will permit reapplication without a year waiting period. 1. Map of Revised Boundary for Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 2. Staff Report dated March 3, 1995. 3. Letter from Applicant dated March 17,1995. V v i wr... .- N" 77 70 7-= -'=_S rE^LT. FRAINKLIN P. KOTTSCHADE SLTTE 250 3800 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH ROCHESTER, MIV.N'ESOTA 55901-0108 PHONE (507) 287-0909 FAX (507) 288-0658 Lure 28, 1995 Mayor and Council '.lfemhers City of Rochester Rochester City Hall Rochester, Minnesota 55902 Re: Revised Future Land Use Plan Amendment k94-6 and Zoning District Change k94-10 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Please be advised upon consultation with City Staff, and Council Members, I am agreeable to having the above referred to Land Use and Zoning Change rescheduled. Charlie Reiter of the Consolidated Planning Department has indicated everything should be completed with the Highway 63 Corridor Study by the first week of August, 1995. Accordingly. I am agreeable to rescheduling the above referred to Land Usc and Zoning Change in order for the City to complete the Highway 63 Corridor Study. I do hereby request hearings regarding the above referred to Land Use and Zoning Change be rescheduled for the August 21, 1995 Rochester City Council Meeting. Thank you in advance for your attention to this request. FPK:jgl is Sincerely, Franklin P. Kottschade Liu Pi 40 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jeffrey Ellerbusch, Planner DATE: March 3,1995 �Ni[T[i•q/Mtit �� i' ![O•iuGUST•S• ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 559044744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING HOUSINWHRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507l285-8345 RE: Revised Future Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 and Zoning District Change #94-10 11 r• 9-i•Eu-r a: I NA Realty, Inc. Franklin. P. Kottschade, President 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 McGhie and Betts, Inc. 1648 3rd Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc. 300 First Avenue North Suite 210 Minneapolis, MN 55401 On November 28, 1995, the present applicant N.A. Realty, Inc., submitted applications to amend the Rochester Future Land Use Map on 218.64 acres of land located on the south side of 40th Street SW between 11th Avenue SW on the west and U.S. 63 on the east. The request at that time was to redesignate the west 120.95 acres from the "low density residentiar land use category to the 'medium density residential" designation and rezone the 109.05 portion in the present city limits from R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The remaining easterly 97.69 acres was requested to be amended from 'low density residentiar and "medium density residential' to "commercial' and rezone 74.32 acres of the area (Mixed Low Density Residential) to B-4 (General Business) A 23.37 acre parcel in the northeast comer of the property at the comer of 40th Street SW and U.S. 63 was not included in the rezoning request to B-4 because the applicant indicated he was no longer the legal owner of this parcel AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY f AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER /�� Page 2 ni J Land Use Plan #94-6 8 Zone G. _nge #94-10 V0 March 3. 1995 The original Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 and Zoning District Change #94-10 was scheduled for a public hearing before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on December 14, 1994. The Planning Department in its report to the Commission suggested that plans with additional detail be presented by the applicant and that a predevelopment meeting to discuss the proposal would be necessary to clarify the original questions and concerns raised in the staff report so an informed decision could be made. N.A. Realty, Inc., requested that the Commission continue the public hearing to a later date to give an opportunity for an appropriate response. On February 8, 1995, the applicant requested that the City Planning and Zoning Commission reschedule consideration of the matter on March 8, 1995. The applicant submitted a written report on the land use plan amendment and rezoning request and copies were distributed to the Planning Commissioners at their February 8, 1995 meeting. A complete copy of the submitted information is attached to this report. VIZTT$ =-MILM.� The information submitted by N.A. Realty, Inc., on February 8, 1995, officially amended the original application by removing from consideration the portion of the site originally proposed for designation as "medium density residential" and rezoning to R-3. The proposal as it stands now is to amend the Future Land Use Map to designate the 97.69 acres (gross) to the "commercial". The present plan designations for this portion of the site are "low density" residential over all but approximately five acres of the site near the southeast comer where the "medium density residential" designation is shown. This "medium density" designation was shown on the plan because the Thoroughfare Plan indicates an interchange is planned at TH 63 and 48th Street. Medium density land use would be anticipated in close proximity to such an access location. The portion of the site subject to flooding from Willow Creek is shown as "Flood -Prone" area which is treated for zoning purposes as an overlay land use designation. The rezoning request that accompanies this land use plan amendment includes only a subset of the entire acreage. Of the 97.69 acres proposed to be designated "commercial" 74.32 acres is requested to be zoned from R-1 to B4 (General Business). The 23.37 acres at 40th Street and TH 63 that has been sold by NA Realty, Inc., will presently remain zoned R-1 (Mixed Single) Family. Adjacent Land Use Designations and Zoning: The following existing land uses and their respective plan designations and zoning districts lie adjacent to the property in question: East: U.S. 63 (South Broadway) a four lane, divided highway with at grade intersections designated as a 'freeway" on the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan. Across U.S. 63 from this site is the Petrol Pumper Truck Stop to the north of St. Bridget's Road zoned B-4 (General Business) and planned for °Commercial". South of St. Bridget's Road is vacant land zoned M-1 • 0 0 Page 3 Land Use Plan #94-6 & Zone C. .ige #94-10 March 3, 1,995 (Mixed Commercial Industrial) and planned for • "Industrial' use. To the south of the vacant M-1 lands are two parcels zoned B-4 (General Business) planned for "Commercial" and used as two dwelling sites and associated commercial businesses as a kennel and landscape & garden store. South: Farm and Farmstead zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) planned for "Medium Density Residential" and "Low Density Residential". West: The remainder of the N.A. Realty, Inc., property zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) and planned for "Low Density Residential" use. North: 40th Street SW, a planned "collector" street. North of 40th Street from TH 63 west to Willow Creek the land is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) and shown for 'Industrial" use on the Future Land Use Map. There are several industrial shops in this area. West of the Creek on the north side of 40th Street is the Willowridge Mobile Home Community on Willow Ridge . Drive SW and single family homes on Willow Heights Drive SW and Willow Ct. SW. The mobile homes are zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) and the detached single family homes are zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). These existing residential uses are planned in a "low density residential" area on the Future Land Use Map. Flood Plain: The Federal Emergency Management Agency has prepared floodway and flood boundary maps that are being adopted by the City. These maps establish overlay zoning districts on this property. Of the 97.69 area proposed for commercial designation. 16.47 acres or 17 percent is in the floodway of Willow Creek where no structures are allowed. 30.79 acres of the site is in the 100 year flood fringe which for zoning purposes falls in the category of "Flood Prone" district (62.803 of the Zoning Code). Flood prone areas can be developed if elevated above the Flood Protection Elevation. Any filling in the Flood Prone area must meet the additional standards of 62:860 of the Zoning Code which require no net loss of storage of floodwaters on the site because of the development. The 74.32 acre area • proposed to be zoned B-4 contains 10.6 acres of Page 4 Land Use Plan #94-6 & Zone C ige #94-10 n March 3, 1995 D floodway (14% of the total area) and 13.29 acres of floodprone flood fringe. Wetlands: The portion of this site outside the floodway has had wetlands delineated under the interim wetland rules through a study completed in December of 1993. We have been told by the consultant for the project that a new delineation is being prepared and will be submitted. According to the 1993 delineation, there are 16.73 acres of wetland along the frontage of US 63. All wetlands filled or drained must be replaced. The 1993 study said the plan was to drain or fill all the existing wetlands on the site. Transportation Access: This site has one 66' wide access opening to US 63 at the median opening at St. Bridgets Road. At the very southeast corner of the site this property has a shared access to US 63 with the adjacent property to the south. The property has access potential to 40th Street SW. Access east of the bridge on 40th Street can be extended into this property. West of the bridge on 40th Street and off 11th Avenue SW, access can only serve the portion of the site between the roadways and Willow Creek unless a bridge is built over Willow Creek. The property has no access agreements with the owners to the south, so access to 48th Street SW is not available. The City will be installing traffic signals at the 40th Street SW and US 63 intersection early this year. Thoroughfare Plan: The ROCOG Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan designates TH 63 as a future "freeway", 48th Street SW' and TH 63 as the location of a highway interchange, 11th Avenue SW (presently a gravel road) as an arterial street, 40th Street and a planned north -south road between 48th and 40th Street SW as collector streets. (See attached map). A major study of the US 63 South Corridor from US 52 to Interstate 90 has been undertaken by ROCOG as lead agency with support from MN DOT. The study has the following elements: 1. Defining the long term character for the corridor in. terms of the type of travel service tc provide (Freeway, expressway, artenal). 2. Developing a long term access management plan for the length of the corridor, considering potential development patterns within the area adjacent to the corridor as well as external travel growth • 0 Page 5 Land Use Plan *94-6 & Zone C .ige #94-10 March 3, 1995 3. Identifying the preferred location and provide • preliminary design evaluation for an interchange in the vicinity of St. Bridgets Road between 40th and 48th Street SW. 4. Assembling a recommendation on the preferred local collector street system for the adjacent lands located in the core area of the corridor (the core area is defined as US 52 to St. Budgets Road). 5. Developing an interim operations plan for the core area for implementation assuming that major upgrading will be limited by financial constraints at the local and state level. This study should result in final recommendations early this year. Results of the study could be the basis for the development of other land use controls in the US 63 corridor such as official maps or overlay zoning regulations. For the purposes of efficient analysis, the subject property has been included in the traffic forecast and modeling work being done in the study as potentially • commercial property. Zoning Ordinance Definitions: The requested zoning district is described in the zoning ordinance as follows: B-4 General Commercial District: This district is intended to provide for areas of concentrated commercial development outside the Central Development Core, oriented towards thoroughfare locations because of the access and visibility those locations provide. and consistent with the locational criteria for such uses in the Land Use Plan. Uses in the district are generally of a type providing service to the residents of the entire region or community. • 1 • • - 1 _ _ - • • • l • l 1 ! jT711111124111411M The staff attempted to evaluate the development potential of the site under several assumptions since no specific development plan has been submitted by the applicant. Wetland Assum 'ons: A wetland determination study of this property was 0 submitted to the City in December of 1993. The study Page 6 r/ \ Land Use Plan #94-6 8 Zone Change #94-10 March 3, 1996 identified 24.91 acres of wetlands located on the property outside of the floodway of Willow Creek. 16.1 acres of these wetlands are within the area now proposed to be designated "commercial" on the Future Land Use Map. The study stated that the owner planned on filling or draining all the identified wetlands and would replace the wetlands on site by excavating the uplands that lie within the floodway of Willow Creek. The study estimated that approximately 25% of the land area in the floodway is a jurisdictional wetland leaving about 47 acres of upland floodway available for wetland replacement area. Based on the conclusions of this study, the staff assumes all the wetland areas will be replaced before -a development permit is requested and therefore these areas can be included in the net developable acreage calculations for the site. onina Assumotio s: The present request is to rezone to the B-4 (General Commercial) Zoning District 74.32 acres of the97.69 acres of land that is proposed to be designated' 'Commercial" on the Future Land Use Map. For purposes of analysis the remaining 23.37 acre area that is presently not petitioned fro rezoning from the R-1 district is assumed to also be zoned B-4, the same as: the adjacent petitioned property. Ner ftH aW2 Area• The proposal is to designate 97.69 acres of land as "commercial" on the Future Land Use Map. Applying the site capacity calculation procedures of Section 61.532 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual this 97.69 acre site has a "net buildable area" of 86.25 acres. This figure of net buildable area is used in the Zoning Ordinance to determine the extent to which a site can be utilized for development based on the Zoning Ordinance standards for permitted floor area ration. Oevelooment Potential: The B-4 zoning district request has a permitted floor area ratio of 0.50. As applied to the net buildable area of the property proposed to be designated "comm irciar. a total of 43.125 acres or 1,878,525 square feet of permitted commercial floor area is allowed on the site. This potential floor area would amount to two and a half Apache Malls. A realistic assumption is that this property would never develop at such a phenomenal rate. it is probably more reasonable to assume that the maximum potential commercial development of this site will be at a der* similar to other shopping centers in the Rochester a -�yc Land Use Plan #94-6 & Zone G ige #94-10 March 3. 1995 If it is assumed that parking for the commercial use on the property will be in surface lots (not parking • structures) and the site will develop with landscape area of 10 percent or more then the actual floor area ratio is closer to 0.30. This would result in 1,127,115 square feet of commercial building on this site, which is still one and a half Apache Malls. There are various reasons that the actual building square footage on this site would even be less than 1,127,115 square feet. For example, if the property developed more land intensive uses than a typical retail shopping center this would affect the maximum floor area. Or if a commercial park with needs for public streets or an open space oriented business/office park would also be styles of development that could reduce the overall commercial floor area. Without any knowledge of the developers specific intent for the site the public must evaluate the proposal from reasonably conservative assumptions. Trip Generation The estimates of the potential building on the site can be converted into estimates of daily traffic generated by such buildings. Assuming the development to be typical retail regional shopping center, a reasonable traffic generation rate is 40 trips/per day/per 1.000 square feet of floor area. This results in an estimated daily traffic • generation for this site of 45,000 trips. The estimated acreage daily travel for 1990 on US 63 between 36th Street SW and 40th Street SW is 27,000 cars for comparison purposes. Based on the actual mix of commercial land uses the trip generation can vary When evaluating a proposal to amend the Future Land Use Map and rezone property there are two sets of criteria which should be used to reach a decision on the matters under consideration. The text of the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area lists locational criteria for various land use designations. The plan would identify a single commercial area of the size proposed to be in the category of a "regional shopping center". The plan document includes the following locational criteria for such uses. a) Located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher level streets. b) Having level terrain. c) Having good podsstrian, vehicular, and transit access. Page 8 Land Use Plan :94 8 Zone C :e #94-10 March 3. 1995 d) Having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development. Section 60.338 of the Rochester Zoning ordinance and Land Development Manual states the • policies for rezoning petitions and the findings that the City Planning and Zoning Commission and Council must address when considering a zoning district amendment. For map amendments (rezonings) the following findings addressing the relationship of the proposed rezoning to the following policies must be made: a) whether the area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; or b) whether the area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage_ redevelopment of the area; or c) whether permitted .uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; or d) _whether the proposed amendment involves spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). • Evaluating the proposed amendment and rezoning in light of the above listed criteria and policies the staff finds the following: The property does not meet the locational criteria for a regional shopping center according to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan because the site is not located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with a similar or higher level street. The site is located at the intersection of a "collector" street being 40th Street SW and US 63 a planned "freeway" as designated on the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan. This site presently meets the locational criteria for a "neighborhood shopping center" of four to eight acres according to the locational criteria for commercial uses in the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan . 2..At the present level of improvements, the roadway system in the area does not provide the site with the good pedestrian, vehicular or transit access: The existing at grade field drive access locations, if developed to accommodate commercial traffic at a level that a site of this size could seriously reduce the level of service of US 63. 3. When considering the rezoning of this 74.32 acres the policy in Section 60.338 (1) (c) of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual requires that the City evaluate whether the uses permitted in the requested zoning district (in this case the B-4 zone) are compatible with the adjacent properties and the neighborhood. The staff suggests that the portion of the rezoning area between Willow Creek and 40th Street SW across the road from the • Willowridge Mobile Home Park and the single family homes in Willow Heights could permit Land Use Plan #94-6 & Zone C ge #94-10 March 3. '995 47 uses which would be incompatible with the adjacent residential uses. It also is found that the uses potentially permitted in the B-4 zone could generate traffic demands that are incompatible with the present adjacent roads (property) being 40th Street SW and U.S. 63. The conclusions of the U.S. 63 corridor study may result in recommended modifications to the roadway classifications and improvements to the system which would then qualify this site or a portion thereof as a regional shopping center location. At the present time, "commercial" redesignation would perpetuate an extension of strip commercial development. At the present time the proposal as submitted does not adequately meet the locational criteria or rezoning policies and should be denied. Whatever the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission is on this petition, the Commission should request that their decision be stated as findings of fact with the assistance of the City Attorney. The findings can be reviewed by the Commission and voted on at the next meeting following the decision. For the information of the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council the staff requested that the City Attorney evaluate the options for establishing a moratorium on development applications that would have a direct effect in the area of influence of the US 63 corridor. A memo dated February 23, 1995, from the City Attomey is attached for your review. The establishment of a moratorium on development is a decision that would rest the City Council. The Commission may wish to discuss the efficacy of a moratorium. I_[ - M= 1. Applicant's Submittal 2. 600 Scale Location Map 3. Future Land Use Map 4. City Zoning Map 5. Flood Boundary Map 6. Thoroughfare Plan 7, Referral Comments from Public Works 8. Referral Comments from RPU Water 9. Referral Comments from RPU Electric 10. Referral Comments from MN Dot 11. Memo from the City Attorney 0 jI i HIGHWAY 63 SOUTH PROPERTY South West Corner at 40th Street and Highway 63 Rochester, Minnesota LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT and REZONING REQUEST • of ! 1 1. 1 1 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT 1 and REZONING REQUEST 1 1 1 Prepared For the 1 Parks Commission, Planning Commission & City Council of 1 Rochester, Minnesota 1 1 February 6, 1995 1 1 1• 1 1 1 1 Submitted by: 1 1 Franklin P. Kottschade 1 ► q `O TABLE OF CONTENTS P L COVERLETTER M 'LAND USE AND REZONING REQUEST III. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS f TV. NATURAL FEATURES MAP i V. LAND USE AND REZONING MAPS It u L� COVER LETTER Franklin P. Kottschade 3300 F*war 52 North Rochester, Mionesom 55901 (507) 287 909 • February 3, 1995 City Planning and Zoning Comnussion Rochester - Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive South East Rochester, Minnesota 55904 RE: Kottschade Property on Highway 63 Dear,Commissioners: We previously submitted an application in December, 1994 for a land use plan amendment and rezoning. We postponed the review of that application to further study the land use issues as pointed out in the City staff review. We are amending our application to ask for the commercial land use designation on 97.69 acres and rezoning to B-4 on 74.32 acres of the re -guided area All the remaining land will be lee unchanged with its present R-1 zoning. This application does not include any re -guiding or rezoning to, • medium density residential Our application includes additional mapping of natural features of the property and a narrative description of our proposal. I have also added to our consultant team John Uban, Consulting Land Planner with the firm Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., 300 First Avenue North, Suite 210, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401. We are anticipating that after the land has been re -guided and rezoned to commercial we will be able to make the investment in more detailed development studies and prepare a development plan to bring forth to the City at a later date. These detailed plans will be developed based on the B—i zoning Once again, we must fast have the property rezoned to the appropriate land use so that more detailed planning can commence. Sincerely, Franklin P. Kottschade 0 • LAND USE and REZONING REQUEST • 1 LAND USE PLAN A:�ND.lENT AND REZONING REQUEST Mr. Kottschade owns about'200 acres adjacent to Flighway 63 and 40th Street South West. The • submitted plans that accompany this request are a revision to the plans previously reviewed by the City of Rochester for the planning of the Kottschade Property. The proposal to re -guide and rezone a portion of the property from single family residential to medium density multiple family has been eliminated. The portion of the past proposal that was supported by the City was the re -guiding and rezoning to Commercial for -he portion of land adjacent to Hehway 63. The City has recently been :_lying the Hghway 63 Corridor for improvements and for the potential land use changes between the airport and 40th Street. These plans have included several new areas for industrial and business growth to support this business corridor connection between the airport and downtown Rochester. Commercial facilities are also part of the studied land uses for this area_ The proposed land use change of approximately 98 acres of Commercial includes two access points to FTighway 63 and the potential for a secondary access for 40th Street. The commercial portion of the property is relati<•ely flat except for the south west comer, which would be left intact as part of buffering to future residential development to the west. This Commercial area is appropriately located along the major arterial Flighway 63 and has access to that arterial which will also allow good vehicular and transit circulation. The Commercial portion of. the site is over 40 acres. This consolidated area of Commercial will allow for a variety of development scenarios to take place and will also be flexible enough to preserve open space and' • provide for an attractive settiulg without creating a strip commercial area along the FEghway. It is important to have ample depth in a commercial area to accommodate a variety of new commercial uses. The proposed commerc:al area is between 800 feet to 1,200 feet in depth. A 74 acre area is proposed to be zoned B-4 which accommodates two access points out to Highway 63. Because of the projected growth that has been indicated in the Flighway 63 study, there is a distinct need for a consolidated Commercial area along the Hlighway corridor. This commercial area can serve the traveling public, and the growth of the southern area of Rochester. The airport is a main regional attraction which naturally stimulates industrial business and commercial growth. Also, the area serves a large rut -al trade area to the south and will act as a new employment base which will further strengthen the overall economy of Rochester and Olmsted County. Wetland delineation for this property has been submitted to agency review and its final delineation will have. been agreed upon by the end of February. Our general review of the wetland condition is that a portion of the Kottschade parcel has wetland designations that fall within the flood fiinge area These areas will be treated sensitively in any future development as regulated by the Corps of Engineers. We anticipate that there will need to be some amendments to the flood plain for the purpose of access roads and supporting structures. We will also use the environmental areas such as steep slopes, woods, wetlands, and flood plain to create site buffering and an aesthetic setting for the commercial business. 0 Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning Request February 6, 1995 Page 2 �• Overall, we hope to elevate the general development standards for commercial buildings above what has previously been experienced in Rochester. Our goal is to approach the land in a creative fashion which can best be studied after receiving appropriate re -guiding and zoning. Our emphasis will be on creating appropriate relationships to future adjacent land uses and a responsible design for the a environmental concerns for the site. The end product will be a commercial area very supportive of t regional growth patterns and complimentary to the overall Highway 63 strategies that will help build an excellent business corridor from the airport to downtown Rochester. E LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS r -� McGhie _ BettN9Inc. g7 Consulting Engineers n Land Surveyors Planners 1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT (R-1 to commercial) FOR: NA REALTY, INC. DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1994 A part of the north one half of Section 26, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, i Rochester, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 26; thence South 89 degrees 26 minutes 47 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northwest Quarter, 780.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 43 minutes 50 seconds West, 2637.74 feet to the south line of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 23 minutes 36 seconds East along said south line, 880.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 24 minutes 45 seconds East along the south line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26, a 1 distance of 324.38 feet to the westerly right of way line of T.H. No. 63 (the next 4 courses are along said line); thence North 18 degrees 29 minutes 42 seconds East, 1736.69 feet; thence northerly 890.52 feet along a tangential curve concave f westerly, central angle of 09 degrees 11 minutes 09 seconds, and radius of 5554.50 feet; thence North 40 degrees 25 minutes 54 seconds West, 130.32 feet; thence t North 00 degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds West, 33.00 feet to the north line of said 10 Northeast Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds West along said north line, 1070.58 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 97.69 acres more or less. a LS !904•'9%5 was— _ 'prx = - sasi:nc :arvs := a _ 5 fra'•es�aen1 0a Ad t- M rrO. P.E. MC& Press i W Bars ' 2 B Vice-.mze': -*:a- -a0Y . 5na,.+m. a.LS. #,,Warr K K~. PE Mar. E 5!•M. 2 t) MLGhie Betts", Inc. X Consu!ting Engineers , Land Surveyors V Planners r ' 648 T : d Avenue S.E.. Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 PROPOSED REZONING (R-1 .to B-4) FOR: NA REALTY, INC. DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1994 A part of the north one ha'.= of Section 26, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Rochester, Minnesota, des_ribed as follows: l Beginning at the northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 26; thence South 89 degrees 26 minu;es 47 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northwest Quarter, 780.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 43 minutes 50 seconds West, 2637.74 feet to the south line of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 23 minutes 366 seconds East along said south line, 880.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 24 minutes 45 seconds East along the sc_th line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26, a 1 distance of 324.38 feet tc the westerly right of way line of T.H. No. 63; thence North 18 degrees 29 minutes 42 seconds Eastalong said line, 1736.69 feet; thence 1 northerly 120.00 feet alor.g said line and along a tangential curve concave westerly, central angle of 01 degree 14 minutes 16 seconds, and radius of 5554.50 feet; thence North 72 degrees 44 minut_s 34 seconds West, 50.00 feet; thence westerly 309.35 l feet along a tangential curve concave southwesterly, central angle of 59 degrees 04 minutes 54 seconds, and radius of 300.00 feet; thence South 48 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds West, 256.55 feet; thence southwesterly 356.69 feet along a tangential curve concave northerly, c=_ntral angle of 37 degrees 09 minutes 28 seconds, and radius of 550.00 feet; the.-ce North 04 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds West, 1233.09 feet to the north ° ne of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26; thence South 89 degrees 27 Mims--3s 00 seconds West along said north line, 28.14 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 74.32 acres more or less. 0 0 '?U-`9'S c '!_ '_e' o•s:ae- . - . - - - ' _ _ Trifle __'' _Hann ec yea ce'-es:c ° a- Ken,w e- r M 1 I I r] NATURAL FEATURES MAP F I 101 LAND USE and REZONING MAPS LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT 3 N 4925'54" W ;�3a.3z DESCRIPTION: 00 �I 890. SEE ATTACHED: NOM 0 4 52 R>5 lL 8ERNM .AMWEo. n Fes.=9, ' 054 0 o Z ryN't 1 �� V 78. SCALE ?" = 400' i r0 co yrrrr ♦ e o'n •�-v 324. .fi9 ACRES ' N 8524.4s E 97 a i-141•N 1 a' COMMERCIAL 4 u1 ?` O N zo 2m b, IZ I 1 i � 2837.74 ____ , S 0(743'50"_ W - II' LOW DENSITY. I, �I I RESIDENTIAL I II I I I a sIs-a. I Mws" dniiy umt Or m/'�• OI.ti > �. Or•0^^O i .m sr a.fR .n Ar.el ouy.r.l.mn 0.0 . 1 am a Out/ �� �w unNr um h.+ 01 Or 5toto d Iiinn4oNo. WE qrG 40. 1!622 ___ 400' ray FRANAI.IN. P. KUT[SCHAOE MCGhie Betts,ww- ,jr. 11-23-94 NROPERTMS &.04 .n7 4LL : 1009/2500 Coen N 25C= ROCRESPER. UDWE8OTr► w �_ . ME w . 94-49A4 P - � PROPOSED RE ZONING R —1 TcO a PO p0 Nh gel LM k i i v0 `! Nm Go m Ln i c I i R-1 N 04 40'00' W 11 B-4 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION: �2ppo R, SEE ATTACHED: NGM d,pl. 555 ALL HEARINGS ASSLMED lcllol .1 74.1-50 ' _ e Al 2,9rg•SCA__` — 0 74.32 ACRES B-4 R-1 S }I}M — - aiawn 1 Waty ealft Uwe UW tum". amm w n" wa aa0altd by 11n w wo" RIB 6 1 mww%isip ab UM 1 am a •ti Rag*wW LwW 3,~,w ~ Rw law of uw suet of Ylmvaau. lat FRANKUN. P. KOTrSCHADE McGhie Betts PROPERTIES ,..., o,r.. ,.. s..w.. ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA .•+.., +. rr w ar w.. Is. rY38 224'45' E ImmaU. x !il}N � ! W ON m zb cc IZ . 1 DATE : __-- REG NO. '•1522 E 400.__-- Ma a. 9wc our= 11-23-94 Ktl. w.: 1009/2500 Cow w 25C_ !t! M 94 49A3 !i f M sP Sw CB-4'gm waew >amncrs— asaQ- - ..-..-...�r__...� - H-4 ROOD mrjmc77 DC - C�•.1 D..Y•�. Ow - 1D-• _ ILiV DYI�d wF - .— - D1FD _ 1Yw.fi•1�. is _ _ - s s B-4 ♦ �� + I - � It I i I 74.32 AcxES . , $• � FkOPbiFa FaR � a •. • 0 6-4 ' 0-4 1 • wfD �I�Ii.IiI�. �Di• -- �• i L I I - li, zy �� I r4� nv%ovta . t `o CURRENTLY HE VALID _ — f THOROUGHFARE PLAN +. �E '— for the GlY of Rochester and the Townships of � ••��••• �� -- cascade. Marva, ••••••• —� Haverhin. Rochester. = amm and a portion of High Forest O /� ADOPTED SEPTEMBER, 1977 AMENDED IULY, 1982 - AMENDED ►ULY. 1985 ` 1AL. , 1 N L ctc wntoi rvwwv 0 badCM 0 December 5, 1994 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FROM: Department of Public Works DEPARTMENT OF PUSUC WORK_ 1602 4th Street S.E. Rochester, bM 55904.4718 (507) 281-6= FAX #(507) 281-6216 RE: URBAN SERVICE AREA FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT #94-6 & ZONING DISTRICT CHANGE //94-10 BY FRANKLIN P. KOTTSCHADE The Department of Public Works comments are as follows: 1. ASSESSMENTS J8868 Water Tower $1,022.18 per acre, plus interest 07.5 % from 2/22/89. $30.00 per foot direct contact to watermain on 40th St. S.W., plus interest 07.5% from 2/22/89. Trunkline Sanitary Sewer $1100 per acre (40 acres previously assessed in 1974). (30.44 acres Plat 5143 Parcel 01100, 9.56 acres Plat 5143 Parcel 00700). Direct Connect to Trunkline Sanitary Sewer $25.00 per foot. 787 feet (T.H.63 Frontage) x $45.3509 per foot $35.961.15 Phu interest 07.5% from 6/19/89. A. EP-1 op 't.rett/ wo-W Ar Am.. S Ay.. 4(0 Page - 2 2. This request should be tabled pending completion of the T.H.63 South Corridor Study currently being conducted by ROCOG. The study will define transportation needs and plans in this area. The land should not be rezoned until a plan for transportation is adopted. 3. The alignment of future rights -of --way and realignment of the existing roadways should be determined prior to determination of a zoning change. 4. Right-of-way for 40th Street S.W. realignment with St. Bridgets Road should be officially mapped and reserved on plat map for highway purposes. u LI 4000 E. River RcifV Rochester, MN 5590tr2813 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 December 2, 1994 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNI TING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Urban Service Area Future Land Use Plan Amendment 94-6 and Zoning District Change 94-10 by Franklin P. Sottscbade on 218.64 acres lying along the south side of 40 Street SW, the west side of TH 63 South and the east side of 11 Avenue SW. The easterly 97.69 acres of this area is proposed to be designated 'commercial' on the land use plan and 7432 acres of this area to be rezoned from R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) to &4 (General Commercial). The westerly 120.95 acres is proposed to be designated for 'medium density residential" land use and the 109.06 acres of the area presently in the city limits is requested to be rezoned from. R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). • Dear Ms. Decklever: Our review of the referenced petition/s complete and our comments follow: 1. The property is subject to assessments for the Willow Heights storage facilities. 2. The is a 1r water main in -place along the south side of 40 Street SW. 3. When the property develops there will be need for additional water mains and easements. If there are questions, please contact us at 280-1505. Very trttly yours, Harald F. Wobschall Senior EnSWeering Technician • Water Diviaan l-GCO _ .aver Rd.. N.E. Rochester, MN 559p6-2813 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 507/280-1581 December 2, 1994 TO: Rose Decklever, Planning Division Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Roger Kanestadt, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Urban Service Area Future Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 and Zoning District Change #94-10 by Franklin P. Kottschade on 218.64 acres lying along the south side of 40th Street SW, the west side of TH 63 and the east side of 11th Avenue SW. The easterly 97.69 acres is proposed to be designed 'commercial' on the land use plan and 74.32 acres of this area is requested to be rezoned from R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) to B-4 .(General Commercial). The westerly 120.95 acres is proposed to be designated for 'medium density residential' land use and the 109.06 acres of the area presently in the city limits is requested to be rezoned from R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). RPU's Power Division has no objection to this subject matter. Sincerely, Roger Kanestadt ks DEC - 6 09 • „A1NNESo,, 113 Minnesota Department of Transportation t owvict 6 2900-46th St. N.W. OFTRP Box fit 77 . Rochester, Minnesota 55903-6177 507/285-7353 December 13, 1994 Rochester -Olmsted Consolidated Planning Dept. - Planning Division 2122 Campus Drive SE M; 4 Rochester, MN 55904-:.741 ATTN: Rose Decklever, Planning -- RE: Urban Service Area Future Land Use Plan Amendment 444-6 and Zoning Distralongict theChange south sidelof 40`” Street SW, the west side of Franklin P. Kottschade on 218.64 H.a63eandythhee east side of 11" Avenue SW. Dear Ms. Decklever: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed zoning change and the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan. As the area considered lies adjacent to Trunk Highway (T.H.) 63, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has an interest in this matter. Although changing the zoning and the Land Use Plan would have no immediate affect on the use of T.H. 63 for transportation, subsequent activities as a result of . these changes could create problems in implementing a long-range plan for T.H. 63. As you know, a consultant is currently studying the T.H. 63 corridor in this area and is due to complete a Corridor Study report in early 1995. The recommendations of the T.H. 63 Corridor Study will lead to a Proposed Phasing Plan that could be completed by ROCOG in late March to mid -April. The subject property lies at the intersection of T.H. 63 and 40t" Street SW (a major access point to T.H. 63) and is in an area that will be addressed in the upcoming Corridor Study. Therefore, any steps taken toward development of this property may be premature in the fact that they may actually conflict with the Corridor Plan and hinder the development of the long-range plan for T.H. 63. For the reasons cited above. Mn/DOT feels that any actions to develop land within the bounds of the T.H. 63 Corridor Study (including the subject property) should be postponed until completion of the study in early 1995. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely: �� 0, 4,., Dale A. Grove District Design Engineer +r+ EQUW Qcaa rv1Y Emdor.r Suite 250 • 38M Highway 52 N. ' Rochester, Minnesota 55901-0108 ' (307) 287-0909 • Fax (507) 2984M March 17, 1995 Mr. Phil Wheeler Director of Planning, Olmsted/Rochester Department of Planning 2122 Campus Drive S.E Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Re: Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 Dear Mr. Wheeler: We have presented to the city a request for Land Use and Zoning Amendment for property along Highway 63. We have worked with the Highway department and others over the past several years encouraging a study of the Highway's function in this area. The study is scheduled to be completed soon. In the spirit of cooperation, we have adjusted our plans and time table to better meet the decision process of the City. We have, at this point, made our presentation to the Planning Commission, who are in the process of preparing the findings to submit to the City Council. is With dismay, we have read in recent newspaper articles that the decision to deny this request has been made and the City attorney has been directed to produce findings of denial. It was in the • spirit of cooperation that we had made several adjustments in our timing and staging of our requests and future development to meet City planning goals. We believe our direction on this property is a correct one, which will support a strong business corridor and future job diversification for the community. We have anticipated that the studied road improvements will be needed but staged, which would include the frontage road, as has been included in all of the various alternatives studied for Highway 63. We have kept our development proposals and requested land use changes within the guidelines of the studied traffic effects of the Highway 63 corridor analysis. In spite of all of this, we see that the recommendation to the Council has been predetermined to deny what we feel is reasonable and prudent planning. If the present guiding of the property and present zoning of the property is what the City wishes us to pursue, we will honor that planning decision of the City. We will continue in the spirit of cooperation and proceed with development that is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning on the subject property, which is now residential. Because significant assessments are already placed upon the property, the development intensity will have to reflect that financial burden. Additionally, we foresee that the property tax base will be significantly less if developed as housing. A Residential development would provide $190,000 in yearly taxes, where Commercial development, as anticipated in the Highway 63 Corridor Study Mr. Phil Wheeler 't 57 Director of Planning, Olmsted/Rochester Department of Planning March 17, 1995 • Page Two ..... would provide between $875,000 to 51,250,000 of yearly property taxes. We believe this is an important fiscal decision for the City, but we will abide by their decision to have the property developed Residential if the Commercial request is denied. As we place Residential housing on the property, we anticipate that the City and the State will adhere to State Noise Standards as any regional or arterial road systems are improved and pro,,ide necessary quietude for residential development. Obviously, this would not be a concern if Commercial development were allowed on the property. We hope that the City considers all aspects of appropriate land uses in this area. The City should feel confident that we will maintain our spirit of cooperation and proceed immediately based on their decisions of our requested Land Use amendment. Sincerely, Franklin P. Kottschade FPK jgl • Enclosures: 1. Suggested Findings of Fact which support Commission change in "Land Use Plan to Commercial Designation" 2. Rochester Post Bulletin News Article dated 3/9195 3. Letter from Olmsted County Assessor dated 3/15/95 4. Anticipated Development Proposal for proposed land use as presented 11/3/95 at US Highway 63 Corridor Study Open House 5. Alternate Contingency Proposal for proposed land use as presented 11/3/95 at US Highway 63 Corridor Study Open House cc: Steven Kenvold, City Administrator, City of Rochester Richard Devlin, County Administrator, Olmsted County Kermit McRae, District Engineer, MN Department of Transportation Michael Sheehan, Highway Engineer, Olmsted County Public Works Richard Freese, Director of Public Works, City of Rochester Terry Adkins, City Attorney, City of Rochester Mayor and Common Council, City of Rochester Olmsted County Board of Commissioners City of Rochester Planning and Zoning Commisioners • �� FI\DINGS OF FACTS Franklin Kottschade Request for Land Use Guide Plan Change to Commercial (94-6) for Commercial Use Designation The following are suggested findings which support that change in the land use plan: The Highway 63 Corridor Task Force, including consultants, considered the area of the requested change to be Commercial. The traffic projections in the Highway Corridor study were based on the Commercial use. 2. The eventual development of the property, because of limitations of flood plain, wetlands, and future frontage road will not exceed 540,000 square feet, which was the amount of square footage considered in the Highway 63 Corridor Study. 3. The requirement for intersecting arterials for Commercial designation is being met by the fact that a future frontage road will connect both 40th Street and 48th Street. The most probable future designation arterial will be 40th Street and the frontage road connects through fulfilling the access requirements and locationl requirements for a Commercial location. 4. The Commercial designation supports the business corridor concept to the airport along Highway 63. S. Commercial designation as proposed creates a deep parcel of property which can not then develop as a .strip" commercial. 6. Commercial designation will strengthen a diverse business approach to Highway 63 by providing needed services to encourage ,new industrial park development along the corridor and strengthening of a diverse job base for the City of Rochester and County of Olmsted. • 7. The planned land use request has been revised eliminating any commercial designation north of Willow Creek. This will provide a change in land use and/or buffer to residential areas north of 40th Street. 8. The land will not be developed until re -zoned, which will not take place until the Highway 63 Corridor Study has identified specific improvements and a frontage road location. The owner has agreed to participate in the Corridor Study so that planning and infrastructure can be matched to the staging of future development. 9. Continuation of residential designation on this property would necessitate the public's spending a significant amount of money for noise attenuation to state standards for roadway improvements and increase traffic. 10. Assessments have been placed on the property in anticipation of development which can only be reasonably born by Commercial development. I I. The anticipated tax difference between Residential and Commercial use is estimated to be between .7 and 1 million dollars per year. This tax base would be a significant benefit to the City of Rochester and the County of Olmsted. The above findings are in support of the proposed land use amendment and represent a reasonable planning process and development commitment for the City. Future changes are anticipated for long term community • and business benefits to the City and the Highway 63 Airport Corridor. _r. Ji n7r�.� �u i�>» ��..� ��IILc Page 2 Il City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 111 Hearing Date. March 22, 1993 . OTHER BUSINESS Findings of Fact Regarding Land Cse Plan 094-6 by Franklin Kottschade Mr. Ellerbusch passed out to the Commission correspondence from. Mr. Kottschade and copies of the proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions as prepared by the City Attorney. The Commission should move, if they see fit, to adopt those findings and this application would then be forwarded to the Council. Ms. Wiesner stated that she was not part of the previous meeting, but she questioned the discussion of the retail center being next to an arterial or collector street. Mr. Ellerbusch explained that a retail center needed to be located next to two higher level streets. He stated that this criteria comes from the Rochester Urban Service Land Use Plan. Ms. Wiesner asked about Criteria #5(a) and stated that in a development the streets typically develop because of the type and size of development that is constructed. Mr. Wheeler stated that in 1980 the Land Use Plan was adopted. The . Thoroughfare Plan, which identifies the future street network and which locates the areas best suited for certain types of uses is what needs to be reviewed for this application. Shopping Centers are best located with higher level streets. He explained that this location is at the intersection of 40th Street which is not an arterial, and Highway 63 is somewhere between an arterial and an expressway. Mr. Wheeler stated that the staff based their analysis on this property being used as commercial. Mr. DeWitz asked about frontage roads. Mr. Wheeler stated that the Land Use Plan does speak to frontage roads. That is a possibility, although there is not a frontage road at this time. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the Highway 63 Corridor study has not addressed - whether or not a frontage road would be here. Presently, 48th Street is planned for an interchange. Ms. Wiesner asked if this property was developed as "offices", would the same type of logic be used for the street system pattem. She questioned why staff used a shopping center to analyze this property. 0 ^ Pnge 3 Ciry Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 22, 1995 Mr. Ellerbusch stated that staff has no control on what will be developedin an area requested to be designated commercial and also requested to be rezoned B-4, thus we evaluated what would be a typical worse case scenario. Mr. Wheeler stated that the Land Use Plan directs staff to review plans in this fashion. He stated that the zoning would control the intensity. Ms. McGowan noted that Mr. Uban stated in previous testimony that this would be a shopping center. Mr. DeWitz stated that he eluded to square footage, and not necessarily a shopping center. Ms. Haley asked when the Highway 63 Corridor Study is completed, and if it would make the access to this area a major roadway, at that point could the applicant come back and ask'this request to be reconsidered. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that there would be a different situation of facts that would be presented, and a different conclusion could be made. The Commission discussed the Findings of Facts noting that this request does not meet the criteria of being located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher level streets. The Commission noted . that this property does have Level Terrain. It was noted that until an area develops, there is not good transit or pedestrian access. Ms. McGowan commented that there is a vehicular problem at 40th Street, it needs a traffic light in order to make this area safe. Ms. Schultze stated that she has read the findings and she agrees with all of them. Mr. DeWitz stated that he is addressing the findings for the Commissioners that were not present. The Commissioners felt that there is at least 40 acres of land suitable for Commercial Development. Ms. McGowan made a motion to deny the Land Use Plan 094-6 based upon the formal Facts of Findings as presented. Ms. Schulte* seconded the motion. The motion carried S-2. Ms. Wiesner and Mr. DeWitz voting nay. 0 BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION !dx( CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA In Re: Revised Future Land Use Plan Amendment 194-6 and Zoning District Findings of Fact, Change 194-10. Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation On March 8, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester conducted a public hearing, with notice to the public, to hear the applications of North American Realty, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") concerning 97.69 acres of land on the south side of 40th Street S.W. between llth Avenue S.W. on the west and U.S. Highway 63 on the east (hereinafter referred to as "Site"). The applicant originally made two requests: (1) amend the Rochester Future Land Use •Map so as to designate the Site to the "commercial" land use category; - and, (2) rezone 74.32 acres of the 97.69 acreage from the R-1 designation (Mixed Single Family Residential) to the B-4 designation (General Business). At the hearing, Applicant amended his first request so as to remove from the Site that portion located north of Willow Creek. Applicant also asked that his rezoning request be tabled until the Summer of 1995. Thus, the only issue before the Commission is the amended request to change the Rochester Future Land Use Map so as to designate that portion of the Site lying south of Willow Creek as "commercial" land use. Applicant appeared at the hearing and spoke in favor of his requests as amended. Applicant's consultant, John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and 0 Uban, Inc.,. also appeared and testified in favor of the amended requests. Following the hearing, the Commission considered the matter and, based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, made the • following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On November 28, 1994, Applicant requested the amendment of the Rochester Future Land Use Map as to 218.64 acres of land located on the south side of 40th Street S.W. between llth Avenue S.W. on the west and U.S. Highway 63 on the east. At that time, the request was to change the designation of the west 120.95 acres from the "low density residential" land use category to the "medium density residential" category and to rezone the 109.06 acres in the city limits from R-1 (mixed single family residential) to R-3 (medium density residential). • The applicant requested that the remaining easterly 97.69 acres be amended from "low density residential" and "medium density residential" to "commercial" and rezone 74.32.acres of the area (mixed low density residential) to B-4 (General Business). 2. On February 8, 1995; the applicant amended his request by removing from consideration the portion of the site originally proposed for designation as "medium density residential" and _proposed for rezoning to R-3. As amended, the applicant's request was to amend the Future Land Use Map to designate the 97.69 acres to the "commercial" category and to rezone 74.32 acres of the 97.69 acreage from R-1 to B-4 (general business). (The 23.37 acres at 40th Street and Highway 63 which has been sold by the applicant will remain zoned R-1.) Cl 3. During the March 8, 1995, hearing, applicant again amendedIhis request. Applicant asked that his rezoning request be tabled until the summer of 1995. Applicant also asked that his request to change the Future Land Use Map so that 97.69 acres be designated as "commercial" be further amended so as to remove from the 97.69 parcel that land lying north of Willow Creek. 4. The Land Use Map reflects the policies and goals of the Land Use Plan. 5. The text of the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area lists four criteria- to be considered in determining whether to apply the commercial land use designation to the Site. Those criteria are: a) located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher level streets; b) having level terrain; • c) having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access; and d) having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development. 6. The Applicant and staff testified that the Site had level terrain and consisted of at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development. Thus, the issues were whether the Site was located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher level streets and whether the Site had good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access. 7. The construction of retail shopping at this site would involve and affect the intersection of 40th Street S.W. and Highway 63. During the public hearing, applicant's representative, Mr. Uban, stated that there was a need to connect with 40th Street to accomplish the IV, cant's development plans. 8. The. ROCOG ("Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments") Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan designates Highway 63 as a future • "freeway", 48th Street S.W. and Highway 63 as the location of a highway interchange, filth Avenue S.W. (which is presently a gravel road) as an "arterial street", and 40th street and a planned north -south road between 40th Street S.W. and 48th Street S.W. (running through the Site) as collector streets. 9. Applicantfs proposed site has one sixty-six foot wide access opening to Highway 63 at the median opening at St. Bridgets Road. At. the very southeast corner of the site, there is a shared access to Highway 63 with the adjacent property to the south. The property has access potential to 40th Street S.W. Access east of the bridge on 40th Street can be extended into this site. Access west of the bridge cannot serve the site unless a bridge is built over Willow Creek. Access to the • south on 48th Street S.W. is not available as there are no access agreements with the relevant property owners. The City will be installing temporary traffic signals at the 40th Street S.W. and Highway 63 intersection sometime this year. 10. Assuming that a B-4 zoning district is ultimately approved for the site, and assuming a conservative floor area ratio of 0.30, there is the potential for 1,127,115 square feet of commercial building on this site. The size of the commercial building may be smaller depending upon the developers plans, but the potential for this size of commercial building remains. 11. Designation of the Site as commercial would allow the construction of a retail regional shopping center. Based upon • i information provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,I and ;S upon verification of those traffic numbers which occurred at Rochester's 0pache Mall, a reasonable traffic generation rate is 40 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of floor area. This results in an estimated daily traffic generation potential for this site of 45,000 trips. For comparison purposes, the estimated daily travel for 1990 on Highway 63 between 36th Street S.W. and 40th Street S.W. is 27,000 trips. 12. During the public hearing, applicant's representative, Mr. Uban, testified that he anticipated the need for a frontage road, and all of the corridor plans have anticipated a frontage road, parallel to Highway 63 so as to provide access to the Site. He stated that currently there is no frontage road in place parallel to Highway 63 providing access to the Site. 13. ROCOG, with support of MNDOT, is studying the Highway 63 south corridor from Highway 52 to Interstate 90 to determine: a) the long term character for the corridor in terms of the type of travel service that should be provided (e.g., freeway, expressway, arterial streets); b) a long term access management plan for the length of the corridor, considering potential development patterns within the area adjacent to the corridor as well as external travel growth; c) the preferred location and preliminary design evaluation for an interchange in the vicinity of St. Bridgets Road between 40th and 48th Street S.W.; d) the preferred local collector street system for the adjacent lands located in the core area of the corridor (the core area is defined as Highway 52 to St. Bridgets Road); and, e) an interim operations plan for the core area for implementation assuming that major upgrading will be limited by financial constraints at the local and state level. 14. The study should result in final recommendations early this year. Results of the study could be the basis for the development of U land use controls in the Highway 63 corridor such as official maps or overlay zoning regulations. 15. Minnesota Department of Transportation testified by letter, • with respect to. Applicant's requests, and stated the following: a) although changing the zoning and the land use plan would have no. immediate effect on the use of Highway 63 for transportation, subsequent activities as a result of these changes could create problems' in implementing a long-range plan for Highway 63; and, b) the subject property lies at the intersection of Highway 63 and 40th Street S.W. (a major access point to Highway 63) and is in an area that will be addressed in the upcoming corridor study. Therefore, any steps taken toward development of this property may be premature in the fact that they may actually conflict with the corridor plan and hinder the development of the long-range plan for Highway 63; and, c) for these reasons, MNDOT believes any actions to develop land within the bounds of the Highway 63 corridor study should be postponed until completion of the study in early 1995. 16. The Highway 63 Corridor study is not yet complete, and must be completed before any decisions relating to legislative determinations • are considered, provided that such study will be completed within a reasonable time period. The process for consideration of amendments to the Land Use Map can begin upon completion of the Highway 63 Corridor study. 17. The Department of Public Works testified by letter and, with respect to the Applicant's request, stated the following: a) this request should be tabled pending completion of the T.H. 63 South Corridor Study currently being conducted by ROCOG. The study will define transportation needs and plans in this area. The land should not be rezoned until a plan for transportation is adopted; and, . b) the alignment of future rights -of -way and alignment of the existing roadways should be determined prior to determination of a zoning change; and, c) right-of-way for 40th Street S.W. realignment with St. Bridgets Road should be officially mapped and reserved on plat map for highway purposes. 18. During the public hearing, applicant's representative, Mr. *Uban, testified that development cannot overshadow the capacity of the highway and that there needs to be a staging of improvements with a staging of growth. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is properly before the Planning Commission pursuant to Minn. Stat. S462.355, subd. 2. 2. At the applicant's request, the request to rezone 74.32 acres of the 97.69 acreage from the R-1 designation (Mixed Single Family Residential) to the B-4 designation (General Business) is tabled until June, 1995. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester determines that the Land Use Plan and Land Use Map should not be amended, upon consideration of the goals, objectives, strategies and policies of the current Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. The proposed Land Use Plan amendment is inconsistent with the existing Land Use Plan and requires significant legislative determination. 4. By the greater weight of the. evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester that Applicant failed to satisfy all four criteria provided by the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area in determining whether to apply the commercial land use designation to the Site. 5. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester that the criteria for a regional shopping center applies to this site, although the applicant may intend to build a smaller shopping center, because the "commercial" designation to this site would allow for such a shopping center. 6. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester that the property does not meet the location criteria for a regional shopping center according to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan because the site is not located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with a similar or higher level street. The site is located at the intersection of a "collector" street (40th Street S.W.) and a freeway (Highway 63). 7. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester that the roadway system in the area currently does not provide the site with good pedestrian, vehicular, or transit access. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester, pursuant to Minn. Stat. S462.355, subd. 2, does hereby recommend to the Common Council of .the City of Rochester that the applicant's request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map for the Rochester Urban Service Area so as to designate as commercial a portion of 97.69 acres lying 11 101 south of 40th Street S.W., south of Willow Creek, west of Highway 63 and 0east of filth Avenue S.W. be in all things denied. Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this < 7 day of March, 1995. /'Z,Rober/WL, President, Roch er Planning and Zoning Commission n MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held. on Wednesday, March 8, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. at the Government Center, Council/Board Chambers, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN. Members Present: Ms. Christine Schultze. Mr. Tom Bellinger, Vice Chair, Ms. Diane McGowan, Ms. Nancy Richardson Ms. Dorothy Haley, Mr. Bob DeWitz, Chair Members Absent: Ms. Lisa Wiesner, Mr. Don Beed Staff Present: Ms. Rose Decklever, Mr. Jeffrey Ellerbusch, Planner, Mr. Phil Wheeler, Planning Director, Mr. Charles Reiter, Transportation Planner ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS: Mr. DeWltz, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Bellinger made a motion to amend the minutes to have the meetings at 7:00 and if there was information that needed to be covered, then staff would request the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The minutes from February 22,1995 were approved unanimously as amended. Mr. DeWitz noted that Type II had been withdrawn. • PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4 ¢ Urban Service Area Future Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 and Zoning District Change #94-10 by Franklin P. Kottschade on land lying along the south side of 40th Street SW. the west side of TH 63, 97.69 acres is proposed to be designated as "Commercial" on the Land Use Plan and 74.32 acres of this area Is requested to be rezoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) to B-4 (General Commercial) Mr. Ellerbusch presented the staff report dated March 3, 1995. He noted that the original staff report on March 3, 1995, had been written as an official recommendation by staff. He would like to withdraw that recommendation. Mr. Ellerbusch explained that he would be explaining the information from the staff report to the Commission and the public, and he would describe the staffs concerns. He would withhold the official recommendation until after the hearing has been closed. He stated that the Commission could close the hearing and instruct the staff to prepare Findings of Fact regarding the recommendation. He noted that this evening there was a revised application submitted on 2/8/95. This is to amend the Land Use Plan to designate 97.69 acres of land, the second part of the application is a rezoning. He stated that the request at the present time is to rezone from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the 84 (General Commensal) District. 0 City Planning and Zoning Cc .nission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8. 199; 131 Mr. Ellerbusch showed to the Commission a 600 scale map which depicted the area. He noted that there is 23.37 acres that has not been requested to be rezoned and would . remain R-1. Mr. Ellerbusch addressed the landmarks of the area, giving the adjacent land use designations and the zoning. The petitioner owns the property to the west and it is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) and planned for "Low Density Residential" use. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the property in question has Willow Creek flowing through it. He stated that the floodprone areas can be developed if elevated above the Flood Protection Elevation and the amount of flood storage on the site is retained. In addition, he noted that there are some identified wetlands on the site and the 1993 study said the plan was to drain or fill all the existing wetlands on the site. He stated that this project began during the interim rules, thus this would require a 1 to 1 replacement if completed before the expiration date. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that this site has one 66' wide access opening to US 63 at St. Bridget's Road and a shared access point on the common property line at the site's southeast comer. He stated that the property in the northeast comer is no longer in the ownership of the applicant. He stated that access from 40th Street would have to cross this property because the subject property's frontage on 40th Street SW is across Willow Creek. In addition, the creek acts as a natural barrier and a bridge would have to be built to access the property. The Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan indicates that Highway 63 is designated as a future freeway. 48th Street SW and TH 63 are planned as a highway interchange. He informed the Commission that a major study is presently underway for Highway 63 • Corridor from US 52 to Interstate 90. The results of the study could be the basis for other land use controls. The study is a bit behind schedule. Originally the decision on the long range plan was anticipated to be done sometime this month, now it looks that the earliest presentation will be May 26, 1995. He stated that this study will use detailed traffic modeling. He noted that this subject property has been potentially modeled as commercial property for the purposes of the corridor study. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the staff evaluated the development potential on the property based on the zoning being requested. He stated that some assumptions had to be made. The petitioners estimated that approximately 25 percent of the land in the floodway is non -wetlands and the wetland would be replaced in these areas. For the purpose of analysis we assumed that the 23.37 acres would be rezoned to commercial. As for the net buildable area, the site has the potential of 86.25 acres of net buildable area according to Zoning Ordinance calculations. As applied to the property in question, . 1,878,525 square feet of commercial floor area is allowed on the site. It would be realistic to assume that the property would never develop at such a phenomenal rate as two and a half Apache Malls. It is reasonable to assume that this site will be at a density similar to other shopping centers in the Rochester area. At a floor area ratio of 0.30 the site is large enough for 1,127,115 square feet of building. At the estimated development size of 1,127,115 square feet, the traffic generation rate for this site is'45,000 trips/day, based on a typical shopping center trip generation rate of 0 Page 3 Ciry Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 1995 40 trips per 1,000 square feet of building. Mr, Ellerbusch noted that the actual mix of commercial land uses and the trip generation can vary. The point that staff would like to make is that for guidance the text of the Rochester • Land Use Plan gives locational criteria for such uses such as shopping center uses. He noted that the site in question has fairly level terrain, although there is an acre or so that has a slope of 20 percent. This site does have at least 40 acres of land for commercial development. The staff suggests that the site does not meet the locational criteria for a regional shopping center in the Rochester Urban Service Land Use Plan because it does not meet the major arterial requirement. 40th Street is a collector street. In addition, the present level of infrastructure does not Provide good pedestrian & vehicular or transit access. Section 60.338 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. states that the Commission must address criteria a-d when evaluating a rezoning. Staff suggests that the portion of the rezoning between Willow Creek and 40th Street SW, across the road from the Willowridge Mobile Home Park and the single family homes in Willow Heights, could permit uses that would be incompatible with the adjacent residential uses, which is a criteria found in Section 60.338 (c). Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the conclusions of the US 63 corridor study may result in recommended modifications to the roadway classifications and improvements to the system which would then qualify this site or a portion thereof as a regional shopping center location. Mr. Ellerbusch displayed to the Commission a 1985 aerial photo of the • area. Ms. Schultze asked about the ROCOG study, and questioned whether the study has taken into account this commercial development regarding the model. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that 580,000 square feet was used for the model for the area west of US 63 between 40th and 48th Streets. He noted that the model is trying to approximate some of the information that has been given by property owners in the corridor that came to light through the corridor study process, in addition to the potential commercial development within the City as a whole. Ms. Schultze asked for an explanation of the statement that this would encourage "strip development. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that if the site cannot be classified as a regional shopping center, neighborhood, or local center, the Land Use Plan, by definition, considers continued commercial development along a major highway to be strip commercial development Mr. Bellinger asked Mr. Adkins regarding the moratorium provisions. Given the fact that this development could have the potential of a development to be 3 times the sire of what was used in the study, he is concerned that the modeling is incorrect, and thus could require the moratorium. L� Pate S City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 1995 133 • Mr. Adkins stated that if the Commission does not believe that the right sets of numbers were used for the modeling, that should be provided to ROCOG. However, the moratorium's validity would not be affected. He gave the examples of other cases involving moratoriums (billboards and signs over 50 feet). He noted that in all these cases all that the law required was that the study has to be in place or authorized prior to the establishment of a moratorium. He said that law does not dictate how the study should occur. Mr. DeWitz asked if the Commission can put a moratorium on this. Mr. Adkins explained that the Commission can recommend a moratorium ordinance to the Council. It is the Council who has the final action. Mr. Wheeler stated that the ROCOG study is looking at traffic along the main line of the Highway 63 Corridor. It is looking at this site in terms of the potential contribution to total commercial traffic demands for the entire corridor. It will show where signalized intersections, interchanges, etc., should be and how the road system can handle this. Mr. Frank Kottschade, the applicant, 4719 Walbrook Lane NW, stated that he felt that it was important to have some history of this property. Mr. Kottschade stated that he is here to work with the State, City and County entities. He visited with Mr. Mike Sheehan when he had the opportunity to purchase this property. Mr. Sheehan met with Mr. Reiter at that time. The study originated from that first meeting. He stated that with the • spirit of cooperation, he has continued to monitor the traffic study, with anticipation of completion of about a year ago. He stated that unfortunately with the Federal Government involved, there are delays. Mr. Kottschade stated that the issue came up regarding land use and traffic, realizing the dilemma that the planners had regarding this property, it was important to initiate the land use and zone change to have that continued spirit of cooperation. He stated that they are trying to make this a reality as far as this project is concerned. He stated that he is motivated to go forward because of the deferred assessments on the property at an interest rate of 7 percent with costs of approximately $1,000/week. Mr. Kottschade stated that he is working with all areas and with agencies to get all the proper permits for the development of this property. He introduced to the Commission one of the foremost land planners, in his mind, who works with both private and public entities, Mr. John Uban. Mr. John Uban, of the firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, located out of Minneapolis, stated that they work with both private sector and community wort- He stated that they have found a basic approach which works the best and that is the developer and the City working together, to have all of the goals seen by each other and come together for results that everyone is agreeable to. Mr. Uban stated that they anticipated that they wanted the Highway 63 Study to be a little further along, but they would still like to be able to work out systems that will work for both Mr. Kottschade and the City. The . corridor study should not overshadow the development and vise versa. Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 11{L Hearing Date: March 8, 1995 He stated that he has suggestions on how they can amend the project and then they can continue with their planning aspects. Mr. Uban explained that they are offering to participate to bring information together. He stated that the important thing to realize is that this is an important place for commercial development. :Basically between 40th and 48th, this will be improved, there will be a Frontage Road System that will feed to this area similar to what has occurred to Highway 52. He stated that single family would not be appropriate to go right up to this area. Mr. Uban stated that there are a lot of constraints on this property and they cannot have full development potential on this property. He stated that this property does not have capacity to have a full regional shopping center. This really is a community center. This would be much smaller scale, and we would be well within the maximum square footage. We will be within the study of the corridor, presently we are less than the 560,000 square feet. The concept of commercial here supports the idea of corridor growth. This major highway collects agricultural traffic coming into this area, in addition, the airport as the southem anchor, this adds to the future growth. Mr. Uban stated that they would like to work with the City. They would like not to proceed with the rezoning. The traffic study will get into details this summer. He stated at that time, the corridor 'study will be completed and that can be coordinated with that study. He stated that they would like to proceed with the land use designation. He stated that they need to get the heart of what this property will be designated as, then they can move forward with their plans prior to. rezoning Mr. Uban stated that with the Master Plan they will review the other lands that Mr. Kottschade owns. He stated that they would like to withdraw the area to the north along the Willow Creek floodway from consideration for the commercial designation. He stated that they have worked out an agreement to cross properties and use something similar to a frontage road. He stated that they need to decide if this is a reasonable place for commercial. He stated that everything that is around the creek would be for future residential areas, open space, park, pedestrian connections. They feel that this would be a good way to address the development. This will be an interior development, because of the depth, it offers enough space to do something quite well. We feel that the development will be on the flat portion of the property and the hill will be a backdrop. The wetlands have been reviewed. There are a lot of wetlands that have to be dealt with. A lot of the land cannot be developed. Mr. Uban showed to the commission a number of maps of the area. The maps showed that this area would support commercial growth. Overall they feel that the planning strategy is working quite well. He stated that they would like to have their first step approved. He stated that they could bring back in the future to request the rezoning. • Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 1995 13< Mr. DeWitt was not clear as where the area was being requested to be designated. He • asked if it included the floodway. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the floodway boundary is not a surveyed boundary. He stated that the centerline of the creek is easy to describe. Ms. Schultze asked about the proposed collector. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the existing Thoroughfare Plan may be amended based on the conclusions of the corridor study. He noted that the dashed line is the approximate location of the potential collector road. He showed the Existing Thoroughfare Plan. This plan would be officially amended after the corridor study. The proposed stop light at 40th Street is a temporary interim solution for a problem that already exists. Mr. Bellinger asked about the proposed local collector or a frontage road to handle this type of development. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that they do not know enough about the project to give an exact response. Any specific development proposals on this property would be evaluated through a Traffic Impact Report. This would specifically evaluate the project when we know where the accesses would be. The TIR does limit the project from proceeding, it would point out what type of improvements would be needed based upon the private sector proposals. It is required to be done before a permit is issued if the development is of such a size of meeting the minimum thresholds of development. • Mr. DeWitz asked about the zone change request — tabled? Mr. Uban stated that they would like it tabled, and it would be brought back this summer when the corridor study is complete. Mr. DeWitz stated that the study should be completed May 26, 1995. Mr. Uban stated that this would focus on a single solution. There is more study to be completed, we do not know if June is right, or July is right. Mr. DeWitz stated that the Commission cannot table for more than 60 days without the applicant to request that. Mr. Uban stated that they would like this tabled for 4 to 5 months. He stated that he would like to see the first step of the Land Use change. The Commission is then making a determination that this is 'probably' O.K. It you told us no, the Commission wants residential, then we would not proceed with the present plans. He would like a determination of the designation. Ms. McGowan asked if the proposal is dependent upon the frontage road being put. Mr. Uban stated that they will have to connect to 40th Street to do the development. He stated that this may be part of the corridor study. In order to eliminate access points, • Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes ` Hearing Date: March 8, 1995 \ maybe the frontage road would have to be built. he stated that there are a lot of detailed questions that need to be worked with the task force. • Mr. Bellinger asked why does the Commission need to proceed with the land use plan. If no development is occurring. Mr. Uban explained that land use is what the City designates for future development. He stated that this is the first step. The Commission needs to give recognition to this area. Thus, with the assurance, we can continue with our planning, this will keep the ball rolling. This allows Mr. Kottschade to spend more money with traffic studies, this would allow us to study more and allow us to move forward. Mr. Bellinger stated that it seems to boil down to either 40th or 48th Street being the major arterial.. Mr. Uban stated that because of the hill on 48th, you would not want to put commercial there. He stated that 40th is more practical and 48th Street's hill would provide a buffer in a sense. Mr. Uban stated that they are anticipating that there will be a frontage road in this location. He explained to the Commission that they still hold a number,of cards with not zoning this property. Ms. Haley stated that to postpone this request, will this not accomplish the same thing as a moratorium. . Mr. Uban stated that in a sense it would. He stated that the moratorium could be in place if there were a number of developments. He stated that usually you do no place a moratorium for just one application. he stated that we are offering to postpone our actions, to continue to work cooperatively. Ms. Haley commented that if there was a flood of applications next week, the commission still could put a moratorium on this next week. Ms. Schultze stated that the concern she has about making this land use plan change, she feels inappropriate because they do not have any plans. This opens this up for anything to be done. Your idea sounds good, although it does open up a lot of potential problems. Mr. Uban stated that he understands the concerns of the Commissions, that is why they want to postpone the rezoning. He stated that the land use designation does not put constraints on the property. He stated that the study will answer the questions. Ms. Schultze asked what other zoning would be reviewed if B-4 is found inappropriate. Mr. Uban stated that a portion of the land may be zoned B-4 and have it fall within the confines of what would work with Highway 63. The Commission could then see how 0 Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 1995 much would be shopping center, how much wetland, how much frontage road system, etc., Hopefully what the Commission will see how this will all work together. Mr. DeVYtz asked staff to give some insight of the amended request. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that they have changed the land use plan request boundary by deleting the portion of the area that lies north of Willow Creek and south of 40th Street. The other issue is the rezoning and the request is to table. If the Commission would like to table the rezoning it should be done by motion and noting that this was at the request of the applicant and that it would be tabled until some date in the future and notices would be republished and remailed. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that staff is looking for direction from the Commission to come back with findings and a final recommendation on the land use plan amendment as amended by the applicant. Mr. DeWitz stated that staff is not providing a recommendation tonight. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that is correct. The Commission can discuss the findings, and then the recommendation can officially be voted on at the next meeting. We are not asking for you to make a specific vote tonight, but to make a recommendation as to how the findings should be prepared. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the issues of land use plan and rezoning are two separate issues. He stated that the zoningof the property does not have to conform. The designation of the land use plan does not require you to rezone the property a certain way based on findings. Mr. Adkins stated that the courts have indicated that a zoning decision not in compliance with the comprehensive land use plan can be justified, but the burden on the cities to show justification is more difficult. Mr. DeWitz closed the public hearing. Mr. Bellinger made a motion to table the zone change request until the first meeting in June, seconded by Ms. ,Haley. The motion carried 6-0. The Commission addressed the findings as follows: a) Located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher level streets. It was the consensus of the Commission that the property is not located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher levels streets. b) Having level terrain. E Page 9 A City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes lit Hearing Date: March 8, 1995 It was the consensus of the Commission that this property does have level terrain. c) Having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access. It was the consensus of the Commission that this requirement is not met according to the present ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan. co Having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development. It was the consensus of the Commission that this property does meet this requirement Ms. McGowan moved that the Planning Staff and City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact to support that this application does not most the guidelines of the criteria, Ms. Richardson, seconded the motion. Mr. Bellinger stated that from a discussion standpoint, do we want to consider the moratorium. He stated that it does require a commitment for the City to proceed with the study. He stated that it will be difficult to address other development without the corridor study. He stated that he would like to recommend this to the City Council. Mr. Adkins stated that the adoption of the moratorium could be reviewed at the next meeting, when the findings are reviewed. The motion carried 6-0. Mr. Ellemovated that the consensus of the Coun ' t the present ordinance is too cumbe o enforce and they would like th mated in some fashion. Ms. Richardson a if other communfie n reviewed for their requirements. Mr. Ellerbusch stated me co es do more, others do less. He stated that the Council agreed that ' o enforce, although they did not give any enlightenment on how to a issue. We will be looking at how are we going to do this. We can require can have a grace period in the summer, etc. Mr. DeWitz asked to man are received for RV parking. Mr. Ellerbusch that we receive a of complaints on RV parking. The problem m s very fast because go to an area we have to inspect others in a that are violating the ord VMr r asked about permits and if it is violet n fine them $100.00 dollars. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: February 23, 1995 TO: Jeff Ellerbusch - Planning and Zoning Department FROM: Terry L. Adkins - Rochester City Attorney life SUBJECT: Moratorium ordinance Provisions 139 You asked me to summarize the Minnesota law authorizing a city to adopt a moratorium ordinance. That law is found at Minn. Stat. 5462.355, subd. 4. It provides that a city may enact an interim ordinance restricting or prohibiting any use, development, or subdivision within its jurisdiction, or any portion thereof, if the city is conducting a study or has authorized a study as part of the possible adoption of a comprehensive plan or any other land use control. The ordinance is effective for one year and may be extended for additional time periods not to exceed 18 months (for a total of 30 months). The interim ordinance is intended to protect the planning process as well as the public's health, welfare, and safety. Obviously, the legislature wanted cities to be able to put land development proposals .on hold until such time as appropriate land use planning controls were in place. In other words, good land use planning requires putting into place appropriate land use controls before the implementation of land development projects. The interim ordinance accomplishes that goal. So long as a city is conducting a study or has authorized a study, it has the ability to avoid taking action on applications for land use approvals until it has the opportunity to put in place those land use controls which are appropriate in light of the study's conclusions. In the past four years, I know of two instances when this city adopted an interim ordinance: billboard signs and signs exceeding fifty feet in height. In both cases, the city maintained the status quo until it completed studies and adopted appropriate land use controls. Upon adoption of the land use controls, the interim ordinances were repealed. The moratorium ordinance authority has been the subject of litigation. In Medical Services. Inc. v. City of Savage, 487 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a city must exercise its moratorium authority for the purpose of protecting the planning process. A city• may not arbitrarily enact an interim moratorium ordinance to delay or prevent a single project. In Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Noodburv, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), the Court of Appeals ruled that a tvo year moratorium did not result in a taking of a developer's property despite any resulting reduction in the property's value. 0-hopethis information is helpful to you. R[ JEST FOR COUNCIL ACTOOP MEETING q DATE: R/PW PUBLIC HEARNG I PLtVNING DESCRIPTION: Zone Change Request 494-10 by N.A. Realty, Franklin P. Kottschade, R-1 to B- PREPARED BY: 4 (General Commercial) on 74.32 acres along U.S. 63 South southerly of 40th Jeffrey Ellerbusch. Street SW. ni.,., — CITY PLAINVNLNG AND ZONING CONTNnSSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION: This zoning district change was originally tiled concurrently with a request to amend the Rochester Future Land Use Map from 'Low Density Residential' and "Medium Density Residential" to "Commercial` (File 1�94-6). The Commission first officialk considered this requested rezoning and accompam in- land use amendment at a hearing on March S. 1995 At the March 8. 1995, hearing the applicant requested that the Commission table action on the rezoning until June 14. 1995. The Commission proceeded with the land use plan amendment portion of the request and on March 22. 1995, the Commission adopted findings of fact recommending the requested commercial redesignation on the Future Land Use Plan Map be denied. A hearing on the Land Use Plan Amendment was held on April 17, 1995, before the Common Council. The Council moved to table the land use issue until the first meeting following the completion of the US 63 Corridor Study. On May 10. 1995, the applicant requested that the City Planning and Zoning Commission remove Zone Change =94-10 from the table at their next available meeting. On Mav 24, 1995, the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this zone change request and came to a consensus that the rezoning did meet the policies for rezoning as found in Section 60.338 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and instructed the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact consistent with such a consensus. On June 5, 1995, the City Council revisited the tabled land use plan amendment and instructed any interested parties to submit their own written findings of fact on the land use plan amendment. On June 14, 1995. at their regular meeting the City Planning and Zoning Commission considered the prepared findings of fact from the City Attorney. The Commission adopted the findings of fact, a copy of which is attached, recommending to the City Council that Zone Change Request #94-10 be denied. Motion by Richardson, seconded by Schultze to accept the findings of fact and recommend denial of the requested zone change. Voting in favor; Richardson, Schultze, Haley. Bellinger, and Suk. Voting against DeWitt: Abstaining -- Beed. Motion carried 6-1. On June 19, 1995, the City Council moved to open the public hearing on Land Use Plan Amendment R94-6 at the meeting of July 17. 1995. After considering the findings for Zone Change Request =94-6. the City Planning and Zoning Commission also moved tc suggest to the City Council the adoption of a short term interim ordinance as allowed by Mn Statutes 462.355. Subdivision 4. The interim ordinance would place a moratorium on the submittal and action on Land Use Plan Amendments and Rezoning Petitions within the boundaries of the US 63 Corridor Study until the results of the srudy are adopted by ROCOG. Voting in favor; Schultze, Bellinger, Haley, Richardson, and Beed. Voting against were DeWitt and Suk. Motion carried 5-2. NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second �q age 2 iJ ne 29, 1995 The Commission noted that if the Council decided some type of interim ordinance or moratorium would be appropriate, they would be prepared to work with the Planning Staff and Attorney's Office on the preparation of exact language of the ordinance based upon the guidance from the Council. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION ANDREPORT: On June 15, 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 rezoning petition fora 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, June 23, 1994, and a notice of the hearing was published in the Saturday, June 24, 1995. edition of the Rochester Post -Bulletin. Section 60.337 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual requires that a determination on a zoning amendment must be made by the Council within 60 days of the final Commission action on the application. 60 days from June 14, 1995, as "day" is defined by the Zoning Ordinance, would require a decision by Thursday, September 7, 1995. 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 or deny the proposed zone change. The Council's decision on the zone change must be supported by findings of fact based on the criteria listed in* Paragraph 60.338 of the Land Development Manual, as follows: a) Whether the area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; or b) Whether the area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of the area. or c) Whether permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood: or d) 'Whether the proposed amendment involves spot zoning. (Spot zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of the courts in this state). 2. After the completion of the public hearing, the Council should by motion instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law and an order supporting the consensus decision reached by the Council after reviewing the request in light of the criteria of Section 60.338 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. 0 Page 3 �3 June 29, 1995 3. Upon receipt of the prepared findings and due consideration the Council should by motion adopt the • findings. If the order is to approve the rezoning, the Council should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for adoption. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REQUEST: If the Council wishes to approve Zone Change Request'194-6 the staff requests that the Council require that the applicant submit a revised legal description for the property in question because of modification made by the applicant. The petition as officially presented contained 74.32 acres. The applicant in submittals after the City Planning and Zoning Commission hearings had progressed indicated that he reconfigured the 23 acres he sold in the northeast comer of his original tract. This revised property boundary overlaps into the 74.32 acre area. If the applicant no longer owns this small part of this parcel (see attached maps) then that area must be removed from the rezoning. Also the portion of the 74.32 acres northerly of the center of Willow Creek was officially removed from the land use plan amendment to Commercial by the applicant. Obviously that area should not be rezoned to B-4, so the description for rezoning should also exempt that part of 74.32 acres. 1. City Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law and Recommendation (9 pages) 2. June 14, 1995, City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes (4 pages) 3. May 24, 1995, City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes (10 pages) •4. March 8, 1995, City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes (9 pages) 5. March 3, 1995, Staff Report (36 pages) 6. March 17, 1995, Submittal by Applicant (7 pages) 7. June 1, 1995, Submittal by Applicant (8 pages) 8. Map Showing Modified Zoning Boundaries 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, Jul} 5. 1995, ;in the Council Chambers at City Hall. 6. McGhie and Betts, Inc. 7. John Uban, Shardlow Uban Dahlgren & Associates JAE/rd Nq BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Tn Re: Zoning District Amendment ,94-10 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation On March 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester conducted a public hearing, with notice to the public, to hear the application of North American Realty, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") concerning 97.69 acres of land on the south side of 40th Street S.W. between llth Avenue S.W. on the west and. U.S. Highway 63 on the east. The applicant originally made two requests: (1) amend the Rochester Future Land Use Map 'so as to designate the Site to the "commercial" land use category; and, (2) rezone 74.32 acres of the 97.69 acreage (hereinafter referred to as "Site")from the R-1 designation • (Mixed Single 'Family Residential) to the B-4 designation (General Business). At the March 3th hearing, Applicant amended his first request so as to remove from the Site that portion located north of willow Creek. Applicant also asked that his rezoning request be tabled until June 14, 1995. On March 24, 1995, the Commission issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation in response to the Applicant's request to amend the Rochester .Future Land Use Map. That issue is currently before the Common Council for their action. Thus, the only issue now before the Commission is the rezoning request to amend the zoning district for the Site from the R-1 designation to the B-4 designation. 0 NT on May 24, 1995, the Commission conducted a public hearing, with notice to the public, to hear the Applicant's request for a zoning district *amendment so as to rezone 74.32 acres of the 97.69 acreage from the R-1 designation (Mixed Single Family Residential) to the B-4 designation (General Business). Applicant appeared at the hearing and spoke in favor of his request. A private citizen also appeared and gave testimony concerning the request. Following the hearing, the Commission considered the matter and, based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, made the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On November 28, 1994, Applicant requested the rezoning of •109.06 acres in the city limits from R-1 (mixed single family residential) to R-3 (medium density residential). The applicant requested that the remaining easterly 97.69 acres be amended from "low density residential" and "medium density residential" to "commercial" and that 74.32 acres of the area be rezoned from (mixed low density residential) to B-4 (General Business). 2. On February 8, 1995, the applicant amended his request by removing from consideration the portion of the Site originally proposed for rezoning to R-3. As amended, the applicant's request was to rezone 74.32 acres of the 97.69 acreage from R-1 to B-4. 3. During the March 8, 1995, hearing, Applicant asked that his rezoning request be tabled until June 14, 1995. 0 lq� 4. At the Applicant's request, the Commission removed the rezoning request from the table and held a public hearing to consider the request . on May 24, 1995. 5. Section 60.338 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances lists four criteria to be considered and addressed in analyzing a zoning district amendment. Those criteria are: a) whether the area as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; b) whether the area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of the area; c) whether permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; or d) whether the proposed amendment involves spot zoning. 6. Staff testified that the current Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicated that all but the southeast corner of the Site was planned for low -density residential use. The southeast coiner of the Site was planned for medium -density residential use. The portion of the Site subject to flooding from Willow Creek is indicated as "Flood Prone" which is an overlay planning designation. Land located to the west and south is currently zoned R-1 (mixed single family); to the east across Highway 63 is currently zoned M-1 (mixed commercial -industrial) and B-4 (general commercial); and to the north across 40th Street S.W. is currently zoned R-1 (mixed single family) and R-2 (low density residential). 0 N7 7. There was testimony suggesting that the Site may be changing its character. ROCOG, with support of.MNDOT, is studying the Highway 63 .south corridor from Highway 52 to Interstate 90 to determine: a) the long term character for the corridor in terms of the type of travel service that should be provided (e.g., freeway, expressway, arterial streets); b) a long term access management plan for the length of the corridor, considering potential development patterns within the area adjacent to the corridor as well as external travel growth; c) the preferred location and preliminary design evaluation for an interchange in the vicinity of St. Bridgets Road between 40th and 48th Street S.W.; d) the preferred local collector street system for the adjacent lands located in the core area of the corridor (the core area is defined as Highway 52 to St. Bridgets Road); and, e) an interim operations plan for the core area for implementation assuming that major upgrading will be limited by financial constraints at the local and state level. 8. The study has not been completed and the final results are not Onown. Results of the study will determine the degree of change which has occurred and is expected to occur in the future for this area. Study results could be the basis for the development of land use controls in the Highway 63 corridor such as official maps or overlay zoning regulations. 9. Rezoning of the Site as B-4 would permit the construction of a retail regional shopping center. Applicant testified that if his rezoning request were approved, he planned to construct a retail shopping at this site which would involve and affect the intersection of 40t1T Street S.W. and Highway 63. 10. The ROCOG ("Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments") Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan designates Highway 63 as a future "freeway", 48th Street S.W. and Highway 63 as the location of a highway 0 interchange, lath Avenue S.W. (which .is presently a gravel road) as an "arterial street",. and 40th Street and a planned north -south road • between 40th Street S.W. and 48th Street S.W. (running through the Site) as collector streets. 11. Applicant's proposed site has one sixty-six foot wide access opening to Highway 63 at the median opening at St. Bridgets Road. At the very southeast corner of the site, there is a shared access to Highway 63 with the adjacent property to the south. The property has access potential to 40th Street S.W. Access east of the bridge on 40th Street can be extended into this site. Access west of the bridge cannot serve the site unless a bridge is built over Willow Creek. Access to the south an 48th Street S.W. is not available as there are no access agreements with the relevant property owners. The City will be installing temporary traffic signals at the 40th Street S.W. and Highway 63 intersection sometime this year. 12.. Assuming a conservative floor area ratio of 0.30, there is the potential for 1,127,115 square feet of commercial building on this site. The size of the commercial building may be smaller depending upon the. developer's plans, but the potential for this size of commercial building remains. 13. Based upon information provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and upon verification of those traffic numbers which occurred at Rochester's Apache Mall, 'a reasonable traffic generation rate is 40 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of floor area. This results in an estimated daily traffic generation potential for this site of 45,000 trips. For comparison purposes, the estimated daily travel for 1990 on Highway 63 between 36th Street S.W. and 40th Street • S.W. is 27,000 trips. IVy 14. Minnesota Department of Transportation testified by letter, with respect to Applicant's requests, and stated the following: a) although changing the zoning and the land use plan would have no immediate effect on the use of Highway 63 for transportation, subsequent activities as a result of these changes could create problems in implementing a long-range plan for Highway 63; and, b) the subject property lies at the intersection of Highway 63 and 40th Street S.W. (a major access point to Highway 63) and is in an area that will be addressed in the upcoming corridor study. Therefore,,any steps taken toward development of this property may be premature in the fact that they may actually conflict with the corridor plan and hinder the development of the long-range plan for Highway 63; and, c) for these reasons, MNDOT believes any actions to develop land within the bounds of the Highway 63 corridor study should be postponed until completion of the study in early 1995. 15. The Department of Public Works testified by letter and, with respect to the Applicant's request, stated the following: a) this request should be tabled pending completion of the T.H. 63 South Corridor Study currently being conducted by ROCOG. The study will define transportation needs and plans in this area. The land should not be rezoned until a plan for transportation is adopted; and, b) the alignment of future rights -of -way and alignment of the existing roadways should be determined prior to determination of a zoning change; and, c) right-of-way for 40th Street S.W. realignment with St. Hridgets Road should be officially mapped and reserved on plat map for highway purposes. 16. During the public hearing, there was no testimony nor evidence as to the manner in the current roads adjacent to the Site could handle the motor vehicle traffic generated by commercial development. 17. During the public hearing, there was no testimony nor evidence indicating that the requested rezoning would result in the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district C� i� which is different than the zoning district assigned to surrounding properties. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is properly before the Planning Commission pursuant to R.C.O. §§60.333,.60.532. 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester determines that the Site's zoning district should not be amended as requested by the Applicant as the Site's present zoning district is consistent with the current Comprehensive Land Use Plan,, the Site's degree of changing character cannot -be determined until completion of the Highway 63 South Corridor Study, and the permitted uses of a B-4 zoning district would be incompatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood. 3. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester that the Site's current zoning classification under the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (R-1)_is consistent with its current zoning map district (R-1).. 4. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of- Rochester that the Site's character may be changing which is a reason for the Highvay 63 South Corridor Study. However, the degree of that change and a determination of whether the public interest is served by a rezoning so as to encourage redevelopment LJ r s� of the area cannot be made until completion of the Study. 5. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Planning and Zoning commission of the City of Rochester that the proposed B-4 zoning district for the Site is incompatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood as the Site does not meet the location criteria for a regional shopping center according to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan because the Site is not located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with a similar or higher level street. The Site is located at the intersection of a "collector" street (40th Street S.W.) and a freeway (Highway 63). 6. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Planning and Zoning •Commission of the City of Rochester that the roadway system in the area currently cannot handle the motor vehicle traffic expected to be generated by commercial development. 7. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester that the proposed zoning district amendment does not involve spot zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission of 'the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. SS60.333, 60.532, does hereby recommend to the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the applicant's request for an • amendment to the zoning district which would rezone 74.32 acres of the 97.69 acreage lying south of 40th Street S.W.., south of Willow Creek, west of Highway 63, and east of llth Avenue S.W., be in all things denied Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this day of June, 1995. " V bert DeWitt President, Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission 6A 0 Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: June 14, 1995 153 • 0 0 documents should be recorded with the resolution vacating the right-of- way. 2. Utility easements must be granted for the existing utilities located in the right-of-way. In order to avoid having to vacate the utility easements in the future, the petitioner may grant private easements to each of the utility companies. In this case, these documents should be recorded with the resolution vacating the right-of-way. 3. The petitioner must enter into the "Assessment/General Development Agreement" with the City before the resolution is recorded. The agreement must also include language about the maintenance of the vacated right-of- way until the new public road is built Unless the City agrees to maintain this section of road, the petitioner will be responsible for all maintenance. 4. The resolution vacating this right-of-way should not be recorded until the petitioner has platted the right-of-way for the new street alignment Seconded by Mr. Sulk. The motion carried 7-0. Mr. Seed removed himself from the table. There was discussion by the Commission if this item was tabled or continued. Mr. Goslee explained that it does not need to be removed from the table. Ms. Richardson made a motion to accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law and to recommend to the Council that the applicant's request be denied, Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. Ms. Schultze asked to discuss a moratorium. Mr. Goslee stated that the moratorium could be added as part of this document It could be added as an order to the Council with an additional sentence to investigate, adopt, etc. Ms. Schultze asked if it would be appropriate to recommend to the Council to adopt an interim ordinance on any development plans along the area affected by Highway 63 Corridor Study. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the direction could be given regarding the type of Planning and Zoning activities that should be covered, such as rezonings, Land Use Plans, subdivisions, etc. The second thing would be defining the physical boundaries of the moratorium. The Staff could investigate some sort of boundary. ^, Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: June 14, 1995 Mr. DeWitz stated that he feels that the moratorium should be discussed separately. Mr. Bellinger stated that he would like to see this as a separate motion. Mr. Suk stated that he would like to see a public hearing regarding this. Motion carried 5-1. Mr. DeWitz opposed. Mr. Beed abstained. r Discussion Regarding a Moratorium Mr, DeWitz stated that he is not in favor of any moratorium in the City of Rochester. Ms. Schultze stated that nothing has been approved as far as the study and it is difficult to review development without the roads. This allows the staff, the City, and developers to work together. Mr. Bellinger stated that once the study is done, we will have clairvoyance of what is expected. Ms. Haley stated that it levels the playing field a little bit. If we can recommend to the Council that they consider a moratorium, or direct the Commission to discuss a moratorium, it helps to consider what type of impact developments will have out there. Mr. Suk asked what type of development is to be considered for the moratorium. Ms. Schultze stated that she would like to have Land Use Plans, Zone Changes & Plats. Mr. DeWitz does not feel that it is a good idea at all. Ms. Schultze stated that this is a interim ordinance for only a short period of time. Mr. DeWitz stated that this issue of the corridor will not be answered for a number of years. Mr. Wheeler stated that it will be approximately 2 months for the adoption of the plan. He stated that the findings so far have been presented to the Commission. Mr. DeWitz stated that the Commission could come up with a plan and do a study itself. Mr. Wheeler stated that would be a mistake. He stated that ROCOG has the authority to accept the plan. Ms. Haley stated that it would be appropriate to let the Council know that the Commission continues to receive plans and perhaps the Council could consider the question of the moratorium. She stated that the Council could turn around and direct us to do the work • • Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: June 14, 1995 19; 01 r1 L_J Mr. Bellinger stated that he would like to see this as a motion and then it is documented, even if there is not a consensus. Ms. Schultze moved to recommend a short term moratorium on land use plan amendments & rezonings until the completion of the Highway 63 Corridor Study. Mr. Bellinger seconded the motion. Mr. DeWitz stated that he does feel that this open statement is not appropriate, and would like to have staff clarify boundaries, etc. Ms. Richardson stated that staff could prepare the wording and send it to the Council. Mr. Suk stated that he does not feel that to wait two weeks would be inappropriate to see if the moratorium wording is correct. Mr. DeWitz stated that a lot of moratorium have failed because they do not stand up in court. Ms. Schultze stated that she would like this sent onto to the Council. She feels that the Council could look at this and say yes or no. Mr. Goslee stated that the Commission could request that the City Council consider an interim ordinance for a moratorium on development until the Highway 63 Corridor Study is completed. Mr. DeWitz stated that he feels that the Commission should be really prepared; and not give this to the City Council unprepared. Ms. Schultze stated that this can be a general recommendation that can be given to the Council to see if they even want to pursue a moratorium. Ms. Haley stated that this a major step, but the Commission is handicapped until the Highway 63 Corridor study is completed. The motion carried 5-2. Mr. DeWitz and Mr. Sulk voted nay. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Spaeth explained that there has only been one item submitted for the meeting for 28th and it is not a public hearing. The Commission took a show of hands, and there would not have been a quorum. It was the consensus of the Commission to cancel the meeting. Mr. Wheeler noted that concerns of the west side neighborhood is scheduled for July 12th. This could be a round table discussion. Page 9 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: June 14, 1995 There was discussion between the Commission members regarding when to have this discussion. Mr. Wheeler stated that this is simply a matter of the Commission hearing • the type of problems so to help with the review of the Land Use Plan. Staff would be available for questions. There was continued discussion regarding the presentation and the format. Mr. DeWitz stated that staff should prepare the Commission prior to the meeting. Ms. Schultze asked to have something prepared by staff. Mr. Wheeler stated that the comprehensive plan is important as how to stabilize neighborhoods. Part of the problem is how to deal with older neighborhoods around the downtown. The proposal is to hear these people. Mr. DeWitz asked for those people to have some type of agenda that would be somewhat defined and staff could schedule this meeting for the 12th. ADJOURN: Motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. Mr. DeWitz, Chair, adjourned the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: • Philip H. Wheeler, AICP Mr. Bob DeWitz, Chair and • • PROPOSED RE -ZONING R -1 T30 B - 4 EXHIBIT v �o '* o nt A=� o W_ N 04 0'00" b) 00 12 .09 (A � meet n U4 7Fie1 14 DESCRIPTION: '20. 40 R, SEE ATTACHED: 16 QoR 1./4 $$450 642-e NOTE: ALL BEARINGS ASSUMED. g SCALE 1" = 400' �e y it ora.a W s 'A) s®nU Y s-NI-N 74.32 ACRES 2637.74 e 3 43'50"-w - Y N .j 3cc � Fl i 1I IamnnU4 � i FYFN weaa.�. l: FNe• 324.38 N 89.24'45 I t iw )_ 1 I her: nrNfy lhal 111ie survey, pan, ar report ras Preporad ay 11NI O ulcer my dirset Wp k., and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor upda the lam al the State al Minnesota. DATE REG NO.:� row : arm or 9Ylc McGhie Betts,hw w1F: 11-23-94 S]C PROPERTIES are ar— 1w ure llk n ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA .an Ma : 1009/2501 ldx a �. u e re, M seN _ wr-xw-sn mE An: 94-49A3 Cade Na IN REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 DATE: 08/21/95 4 4 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR C-1-7 TEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS D. OLSON 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-1C-1Approval of Minutes -2. Request for Setting a Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Rochester Home Rule Charter C-3. Licenses and Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities C-4. Sound Amplification Permits C-5. Approval of Accounts Payable C-6. Appointment to Task Force on Urban Design C-7. Advertise for Bids/Signal Interconnect 2nd Street SW from T.H. 52 to I Ith Avenue and I Ith Avenue West from 2nd Street SW to 14th Street NW COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: I , � REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE. AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIO S CHARTER COMMISSION C �d2-% ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PREPARED BY: AMENDMENTS TO THE ROCHESTER HOME RULE CHARTER 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 are, with the possible exception of the residency requirement, designed to remove redundancy and provide clear meaning to ambiguous langague. The proposed changes are as follows: 1. Amend section 3.02 to require city and ward residency for 30 days prior to filing for candidacy. 2. Amend Section 5.02 to more clearly state the finality of election contests appealed to the council. 3. Amend Section 6.03 to exclude Sundays from the time period in which the mayor must act. This change makes this section consistent with other time limits imposed by the charter. 4. Amend Sections 13.02, 14.07 and 15.02 by deleting the no compensation provisions which already appear in Section 7.07. 5. Amend Section 15.00 to provide RPU board terms which begin and end on the second Tuesday in January. This change was requested by the RPU board. 6. Amend Section 15.04 to delete references to "power" as a utility created and provided to the community. Under Minn. Stat. S410.12, 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 Monday, September 18, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., to consider the proposed amendment by ordinance. Following the hearing on September 18th the council may adopt the proposed ordinance upon affirmative vote of all members present. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CURRENT SECTION 3.02. (Residency required). No person shall be eligible to hold any office provided for in this charter, who shall not be a qualified elector of the State of Minnesota, and who shall not have been a resident of the city for thirty days next preceding the date of election. PROPOSED SECTION 3.02. (Residency required). No person shall be eligible to hold any office provided for in this charter, who shall not be a qualified elector of the State of Minnesota, and who shall not have been a resident of the city, and of the particular ward within the city if the office sought is councilmember, for at least thirty days prior to filing for.candidacy for the office. CURRENT SECTION 5.02. (Eligibility of members). The common council shall be the judge of the election and eligibility of its members, and, for that purpose, shall have power to send for persons and papers.. Its jurisdiction over election contests involving its members shall be concurrent with that of the district court under the law of the state. If a contestant elects to appeal to the decision of the common council, its decision shall be final. PROPOSED SECTION 5.02. (Eligibility of members). The common council shall be the judge of the election and eligibility of its members, and, for that purpose, shall have power to send for persons and papers. Its jurisdiction over election contests involving its members shall be concurrent with that of the district court under the law of the state. If a contestant elects to appeal to the common council, the common council's decision shall be final. CURRENT SECTION 6.03. (Approval. veto). If the mayor approves the same, he shall append his signature, with the date of his approval thereto. He shall then return it to the city clerk within five (5) days of its transmission to him. If the mayor declines to approve the same he shall within said five (5) days return it to the city clerk with a statement of his objections thereto, to be presented to the common council at its next meeting thereafter. PROPOSED SECTION 6.03. (Approval. veto). If the mayor approves the same, he shall append his signature, with the date of his approval thereto. He shall then return it to the city clerk within five (5) days, excluding Sundays, of its transmission to him. If the mayor declines to approve the same he skull within said five (5), days, excluding Sundays, return it to the city clerk with a statement of his objections thereto, to be presented to the common council at its next meeting thereafter. • 0 [Sections 13.02, 14.07 and 15.02 state that charter board members shall •act without compensation. Section 7.07 already provides that they shall act without compensation and therefor the proposed action on these sections is to remove the redundancy.] CURRENT SECTION 13.02. (Vacancy). A vacancy in the board of directors of the library board occasioned by removal, resignation or otherwise, shall be reported to the mayor and common council, and the unexpired term shall be filled in like manner as an original appointment. Such directors shall act without compensation. PROPOSED SECTION 13.02. (Vacancy). A vacancy in the board of directors of the library board occasioned by removal, resignation or otherwise, shall be reported to the mayor and common council, and the unexpired term shall be filled in like manner as an original appointment. (DELETE: Such directors shall act without compensation). CURRENT SECTION 14.07. (Compensation Prohibited). The members of such board shall receive no compensation for services, but shall be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties. PROPOSED SECTION 14.07. (Compensation Prohibited). The members of such board shall (DELETE: receive no compensation for services, but shall) be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in the discharge of • their duties. CURRENT SECTION 15.02. (oath: compensation). 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. No bond shall be required. Members of the board shall act without compensation but shall be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties. PROPOSED SECTION 15.02. (oath; compensation). 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. No bond shall be required. Members of the board shall (DELETE: act without compensation but shall) be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties. CURRENT SECTION 15.00. (utility board created). A public utility board is hereby created to' control, manage, and operate the public utility systems of the city as hereinafter provided. The board shall consist of five members. Four members shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the common council from among the resident citizens of the city. No person who holds another public office or who is an employee of the city shall serve as a resident citizen member. The term of office of each resident citizen shall be four years. One member •shall be appointed by the common council from among its own membership and the term of office of such member shall be two years. PROPOSED SECTION 15.00. (Utility board created). A public utility . board is hereby created to control, manage, and operate the public utility systems of the city as hereinafter provided. The board shall consist of five members. Four members shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the common council from among the resident citizens of the city. No person who holds another public office or who is an employee of the city shall serve as a resident citizen member. The term of office of each resident citizen shall be four years. One member shall be appointed by the common council from among its own membership and the term of office of such member shall be two years. All terms shall begin and expire on the second Tuesday in January. The term of any boardmember holding such position on January 1, 1996, shall be extended to the second Tuesday in January next following the original expiration date for the term. CURRENT SECTION 15.04. (City utility system). The city may acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, extend, operate, and maintain facilities for the production and distributionofwater, electricity, heat, and power. It may dispose of any such public utility system on a vote of a majority of the electors thereof. It may furnish water, electricity, heat, and power for all municipal purposes and may sell and supply the same to public and private customers within and without the corporate limits of the city. It may enter into a contract for a term not exceeding 40 years with any person, firm or corporation.to supply the city with water, electricity, heat, and power to be sold and supplied to _others. Such contract shall be made by the common council • after receiving a report thereon from the public utility board and may be made without advertising for bids or following the provisions of chapter Twelve of this charter. PROPOSED SECTION 15.04. (City utility system). The city may acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, extend, operate, and maintain facilities for the production and distribution 'of water, electricity, and heat. (DELETE: and power.) It may dispose of any such public utility system on a vote of a majority of the electors thereof. It may furnish water, electricity and heat (DELETE: and power) for all municipal purposes and may sell and supply the same to public and private customers within and without the corporate limits of the city. It may enter into a contract for a term not exceeding 40 years with any person, firm or corporation to supply the city with water, electricity, and heat (DELETE: and power) to be sold and supplied to others. Such contract shall be made by the common council after receiving a report thereon from the public utility board and may be made without advertising for bids or following the provisions of chapter Twelve of this charter. SOW REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 V 5 DA TE 8/21/95 SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATION BUSINESS CITY CLERK C 3 11 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. King Royale Circuses Olmsted County Fairgrounds 8/27/95 3:00 PM & 5:00 PM Rochester, Mn. 55904 GAMBLING - RENEWAL - PREMISE PERMITS Multiple Sclerosis Society 2344 Nicollet Ave. Mpls, Mn. 55404 PREMISES TO BE RENEWED: Kings Crossing Bar & Grill 921 Civic Center Dr. NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Club 63 1726 S. Bdwy Rochester, Mn. 55904 Rochester Civic Theater Raffle 11/5/95 at 220 East Center St. Rochester, Mn. 55904 Rochester Ducks Unlimited P.O. Box 475 Rochester, Mn. 55903 Raffle 9/12/95 at Kahler Hotel 20 2nd Ave S.W. Rochester, Mn. 55902 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second LICENSES AND BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES t PAGE 2 AUGUST 21, 1995 BLING PERMIT CONTINUED . Rochester Art Center 320 East Center St Rochester, Mo. 55904 Raffle 11/4/95 Roger Crews House Movers from Austin for Pat Ryan 1793 36th Ave SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 House moved from 1835 1st St NW to 1725 1st St SW (FLOOD CONTROL) Moved August 15, 1995 Otting House Movers from Lakeville, Mn. for Lois Rud Hayfield, Mn. House moved from 28 19th Ave S.W. to Hayfield (FLOOD CONTROL) Moved August 1, 1995 SEWER & DRAINS Daren Hofschulte DBA D H Backhoe (RENEWAL) • 330 1st St. SW Elgin, Mn. 55932 John Marshal High School Homecoming Parade 9/29/95 Soldiers Field to Central Park & Back A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses and bonds & miscellaneous activities. 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 08-21-95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM & Recommendations City ClerkTEM ANO.Reports DESCRIPTION: Sound Amplification Permits PREPJudy The Cambodian Community is requesting approval for a Sound Amplification Permit in connection with their annual Family Picnic which will feature live music ( possibly amplified). The picnic will be held at the Federal Medical Center Park on Saturday, August 26th, from 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Therefore, a waiver of the 8:00 P.M. restriction will need to be approved as well. The Ability Building Center is requesting a Sound Amplification Permit to allow for amplified music at their picnic on Thursday, September 14th, from 4:00 to 8:00 P.M. at Essex Park. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the Sound Amplification Permits for the Cambodian Family Picnic held on August 26 noting a waiver of time restriction, and the Ability Building Center picnic held on September 14. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: AGENDA SECTION. ORIGINATING DEPT: Reports and Recommendations Finance IL M DESCRIPTION: Approval of Accounts Payable Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $963,889.02 Less: Any exceptions ACTION: Motion by: Second by. ITEM NO. C-95 PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / 71 - / DATE: 8/21/95 • AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational Business Mayor's Office G` -4 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED 8Y: Appointment to Task Force on Urban Design I hereby submit for to the Task Force on your approval the following Urban Design: appointment Lee William Ganske 816 14th Avenue NE To fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Edward Weir COUNCIL ACTION: modw by. Seoana by as 1, � &OENESTEII . M/,�h •� F0: ii-�i ct • � • � lla%ot Chuck Hazania - Room 200. C:itc Hall Rochester. Minnesota C=TY OF g_�CHESTER VOLLTNTE ER NAME: Lam= 10/Lt..4,42 4;4AJ5X 6 Awhes`ter APPL=CATION'•. , ADDRESS: 6%E :'+ :yE"oe jS3yG PHONE: BUS. i9s''1 HOME G 3y-'61''x'- DOYOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES NO PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: /fl/uuEseTA Fb"ulietJ ea.v7ea4. A6ENcY I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON i14 k fbACEW 4464AJ 0E5-/6-N (7FvaO) BECAUSE: Z LJANT 70 HELP -7N6 f"Y OF R [// --7EYL MAz 7Az AND IAPoo1/.5 /75 F,EAu7Yy N/5704Yf -ANO L/0cA&4z-fy. SPEClF/C A/t65 OF jp17cT�ESY Fo/L rnd :,Jc�uOE T,CAr.lS POKTA7ra,J OBS/6;N /NcuRPORA7:o.� 4� //�,2L6N� .:PAr:fS / /Al7c TNS ueBAN LANPSCRPe A.JO PRaiS&/CUA7io/J OF PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach additional information, if desired. aPucA7:c:J : /U.S: 6U✓.oOramBMAL Sd,ewtcsT Lout - T/at® eieyGLL Co:M xu7f62 fWWOOZ GµP[.JYmspir ANO eu4RFA7r VOLuJ7C'82 <J02K A7 QLAAAO ktLL NA'ruW CZAJT&< ,,A:/J!F/LAAJj PG,E 1N '6~kaurN 9dgC PCAN7,N(a PAdrSC7S - of Y2 Y50925 Ae emaAcw ADAfA SeclCetiAWY DATE SUBMITTED: i /ij SIGNED: Return to: Office of the Mayor Room 200, City Hall Rochester, MN 55902 ***************************************************************** DATE w APVDIlTI l T� ammmm. bad OTEM DATA: - ALL-AMERIC'A CITY qu �4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING' G �� DATE: Rn I /QS AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations Public Works C q M DESCRIPTION: Advertise for Bids: Signal Interconnect 2nd St. PREPARED BY: SW: TH 52 to 11 Ave. & 11 Ave. W. to 14 St. NW D.M. Rossman This is a request to advertise for bids for two signal interconnect projects; those being City Project gSSI (J-6306) 2nd Street S.W. from T.H. 52 to llth Avenue and also City Project 999+1 (J-6372) llth Avenue West from 2nd Street S.W. to 14th Street N.W. Both of these projects are from the Capital Improvement Program and are fully funded. Construction plans have been prepared by City staff and the signal timing program has been prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. It is expected that this work will be completed yet this fall. Expected costs are less than $100,000; therefore, advertisement is the Post - Bulletin is sufficient. Council Action R guested Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing bids to be received at 11:00 A.M. on Wednesday, September 13, 1995 at the City Clerk's office. To be considered by the Common Council on Monday, September 18, 1995. I i •UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: M .0 /. N,'b I 1a1H A 1 ' ;2 0p{)tilY Ina le 1/21m1 sr ST — Hw d' to In ISM g' n 1 2 sr € °� o WOOM4 to 17TH Sr 1! 1 2 Si m , 5TH Si 16iH 5T ! 151H sr NW �� l� IS 12 S FF �i �If' ' GPI ti 15TH ST 14TH ST OH n 5T Ab .I¢�.fa4w W i, 12TH W� 27H 2 1OTH sT ' 44-- —p�� � foTH 7N ST '...^ vI^ ST ' q MST nn$ AP Wx 5TH ' 4TH .Q R IXYIC Q 4 1/2 ST � 41H Sf 2N0 sT Wy 2N0 �' ST < Nw 7-2i 15f ST Nw 'TT R _ WEST CQlIER ST _ Nk WEST CENMR5T aT a Ral0 - 15r s1 15r si sw 15r sr s - - ST — zHu sr sw ztro zNo ST s' i p 3R0 < sr N T m _ 4TM snl sw > V! 6n1 sr BTH 5 TF sw 1 ~7H sr v .a.r & GAr6 I i 7M A 71H ST sw Wo ST'S<' < .n, isL 6z 7Fc � 7h 9 ST I ON €i ST ' I4L lN' ul sw < a� m sr rS1 75p� CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF BIDS Notice is hereby given that bids will be received at the office of the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on September 13, 1995 for the construction of the following described local improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, in accordance with the plans and specifications for the same which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City: Project No. 9551 (J 6306) and (J 6372) Traffic Signal Interconnect on 2nd St. S.W. from TH 52 to llth Ave.; and on llth Ave. West from.2nd St. S.W. to 14th St. N.W. Immediately following expiration of the time for receiving bids, the City Clerk and two designated City officials will publicly open said bids in the Council Chambers of the City Hall. The Common Council will consider the bids in the Council Chambers at 7:00 P.M. on September 18, 1995.' Said Construction generally consists of installing Signal Cabinets and Underground Conduit at 10 Intersections and Painting of Poles, Mast Arms, Signal Hardware Plan, Specifications and Contract Documents may be examined at the following locations: 1. Department of Public Works, 1602 4th St. SE, Rochester, MN 55904, (507) 281-6008. 2. Builders Exchange of Rochester, 493 37th St. NE, Rochester, MN 55906, (507) 282-6531 Plan, Specifications and Contract Documents may be obtained from the Department of Public Works, 1602 4th St. SE, Rochester, MN 55902, (507) 281-6008. Each bid must be accompanied by a bid bond, cashier's check or a certified check payable to the Mayor of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, for at least ten (10) percent of the amount of the bid, which amount shall be forfeited to the City of Rochester, Minnesota, as liquidated damages if the bidder, upon the letting of the contract to him shall fail to enter into the contract so let; the Common Council reserving the right to reject any and all bids. A Performance and Payment Bond for the full amount of the contract by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, will be required with the contract. (Personal bonds will not be accepted.) All proposals must be addressed to Carole A. Grimm, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Rochester, Minnesota and shall have endorsed thereon: Project No. 9551 (J-6306) and (J-6372) Traffic Signal Interconnect on 2nd St. SW from TH 52 to llth Ave.; and on 11th Ave. West from 2nd St. SW to 14th St. NW. Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this 21st day of August, 1995. '• CAROLE A. GRIMM, CMC City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 ?? unit: a AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: LETTERS, PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS I CITY ADMINISTRATOR PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ITEM NO. D PREPARED BY: 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: 8W This agenda section is limited to 30 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. 5W 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. 9W Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. cW Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION r iL 4 4 MEETING 17 DATE: 8/21/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR S , r TEM DESCRIPTION: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JOHN PREPARED BY: PERKINS TO UPDATE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLANS S. KVENVOLD Sheriff Borchardt, the supervisor of the Emergency Management function (formerly Civil Defense), is recommending the City's approval of a contract for $10,000 with John R. Perkins to: a. assist the Emergency Management Coordinator with updating the Emergency Operations Plan, providing staff assistance to the Integrated Emergency Management Systems (I.E.M.S.) Committees; b. serve as a Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator on a part-time basis (not to exceed 30 days of on -call duty during the contract periods, days to be arranged between the Contractor and the Emergency Management Coordinator); C. conduct table top incident Command drills for law enforcement, fire department, and emergency medical services supervisors, as agreed to with I.E.M.S. Steering Committee; d. EOC future facilities need assessment and planning; and, e. consult with the Sheriff and others involving Emergency Management. The County Board has approved this agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 4 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/21/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR I G � 2 TEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION PREPARED BY: PERMIT - PEOPLES NATURAL GAS G. NEUMANN The remediation plan for the former Rochester Gas Manufacturing site requires the installation of a number of monitoring wells to monitor the level of pollutants in the groundwater. Six of the wells required for the groundwater monitoring are located on the properties owned by the City west of Silver Lake Drive and north of Civic Center Drive and south of the DM&E Railroad. The monitoring well locations are shown on the attached map. The City has received a request from Peoples Natural Gas for permission to install the six wells. The City Attorney's Office has drafted a right of entry agreement to allow the installation. Peoples would be required to pay all costs associated with the installation, monitoring, and future abandonment of the wells. In addition, there is a clause indemnifying the City. The MPCA is requiring that these wells be inplace for a minimum of two years. The right of entry agreement requires the sealing and abandonment of the wells within 60 days following a decision by the MPCA that the wells no longer are needed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: n Approval of the Right of Entry for Peoples Natural Gas to install the requested monitoring wells on the City property described above. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: JUL 19 '99 10:29 FR AM cNG TSi Si PRUL o.e a n v p H ] N v 3 tl j n l l 5,11 5 3 b W / .sue e s 3 n 3 n n 3A r I s I • s SIX u` e _ m b _ 3 3 Z 7 __ 3 Is S S 3 2 7 3 3 I S S 4 1 I 3 7 2 7 7 •I LJ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l DATE: 8/21/95 ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR 3 M DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR LEASE - CULLIGAN COMPANY, LOT 3, PREPARED BY: OCK 2, COOK SUBDIVISION G. NEUMANN In July, the City Council authorized the staff to proceed to lease easements to certain businesses abutting the lands given to the City for Cook Park which lie easterly of Cascade Creek. The leases are for a 10 year period at a fixed rate which is minimal. The leases provide authority for the City to enforce parking and to ensure access to all abutting businesses. Parking of inoperative vehicles or vehicles under repair has been a problem in this area. The owners of the Culligan property, the Ostiens, have requested a 30 year lease instead of a 10 year lease. The lease would provide for adjustments to the lease rate after year 10. The Park Superintendent has indicated no objections to the granting of the 30 year lease. Approval of the 30 year lease is recommended. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the 30 year lease for the Culligan property, Lot 3, Block 2, Cook Subdivision. ACTION: Motion by: Second by: I ra 00 fit OWSLE oul • LEASE AGREEMENT This lease made this day of 1995, between the CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter Lessor, and Mary Louise Ostien, hereinafter called the Lessee: W ITNES SETH: (1) Lessor hereby leases to Lessee land located adjacent to Lessee's property at 619 6th Avenue NW, Rochester, Minnesota, which is legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Cook Subdivision, for the purpose of allowing Lessee access to Lessee's property. The legal description for this agreement is described in the attached Exhibit "A". (2) Lessee shall pay Lessor $100 per year to lease said land, said amount payable before August 1 of each year. (3) Lessor reserves the right to change lease values at the time of the renewal of the lease. (4) Lessee shall not park vehicles or store any equipment, materials or goods on the leased Mkt . premises. `&, ti • ``£ (5) The term of this lease shall be for a period from August 1, 1995 through July 1, 2005. _ y t- (6) Lessee shall hold Lessor, its officers, agents and employees, harmless from and indemnify Lessor against any and all claims, liability, damage, loss and expense of whatever kind and nature arising or resulting from the acts or omissions of or caused by Lessee or Lessee's agents, guests, assigns, visitors or licensees in, upon, or about the Site, or arising out of or related to the use and occupancy of the Site or the business or activity conducted with respect thereto, including injuries to persons or property. (7) Lessee shall not suffer the premises or any erection or.improvements thereon to become subject to any lien, charge, or encumbrance whatsoever, and shall indemnify the Lessor against all such liens, charges and encumbrances; it being expressly agreed that the Lessees shall have no authority, expressed or implied, to create any lien, charge or encumbrance. The Lessees shall indemnify the Lessor against all costs and expenses, including counsel's fees, lawfully and reasonably incurred in or about the premises, or in the defense of any action or proceeding, or in discharging the premises from any charge, lien, or encumbrance, or in obtaining possession after default of the Lessees for the termination of this lease. 0 0 (8) Lessee shall not sublet or assign this lease without the written consent of Lessor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto set their hands the date first above written. CITY OF ROCHESTER, LESSOR B` ITS CITY CLERK LESSEE BY , ARY LOUISE OSTIEN leueleook.l • 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING L �J uAlt: aitliy: AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT. ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR fe - 4 EM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED iV ANIMAL SHELTER BIDS D. OLSON Bids for the Animal Shelter project were opened on August 16, 1995. The bid tabulation sheet is attached. Staff recommends awarding the bid to low the bidder who is Floyd Larson Construction. Larson's base bid is $727,000. Included in this amount is $95,000 for the County's extension of utilities to the site. This brings the City's share of the base bid to $632,000. Staff recommends acceptance of Bid Alternate No. 2 which adds on $13,500 for a walk-in freezer and Alternate No. 4a which is a deduct of $5,290 for a different chain link supplier. This will bring the total contract amount $735,210. ($640,210 City Share, $95,000 County Share.) The last estimates for this project were presented to Council in May of this year and had a range of $603,318 to $633,484. This range represents the 5% estimating factor that TSP typically uses in preparing estimates. The significant changes that were made between the preparation of that earlier estimate and the completion of construction plans and specifications were the amount of fill that was determined to provide adequate drainage from the site (estimated at $20,000) and the specification of a Purafil Filter system that is expected to significantly reduce energy consumption and have a very short payback (estimated at $18,000). There were six alternates and a separate price for the site work/utilities. Alternate I is for ceramic block in the kennels instead of painted concrete block. Alternate 2 is for a walk-in freezer. Alternate 3 is for a six month completion date instead of a eight month completion date. Alternate 4 is for two different types of chain link for the kennel areas. Alternate 5 is the cost of the domestic hot water line being paid for by the County. Alternate 6 is for the installation of a Johnson Control system. If the Council wishes to award the bid, it needs to also approve the transfer of the necessary funds into the Animal Shelter Project Account which currently has a balance of $422,526 from the Future Construction Account. The current balance of the Future Construction Account is $2,274,219. The Council's previous authorization to proceed with the project in May did not include a formal appropriation of additional funds. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Award the bid for the Animal Shelter including Alternates No. 2 and No. 4a to Floyd Larson Construction in the amount of $735,210 and appropriate the necessary funds from the Future Construction Account (J1994) to the Animal Shelter Account (J2074). £ XV,, = U COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: 8 c 0 O cV R O F �a �ro N N N N N ev N N N 7 y m y rn V O O O p O O O O fA i i 6M9 Q 6R ^ fA N1 dT � w. 2 tn o o e ^ o o o^ at po^ O N .-• i .-� (fl .ti fiq a 54Ov0 � � �^ ^ � 00 let ^ r+ Q4 .,� �� m Q% .�'.69 peg <G M oo O c G kn N p r '" 4 4 1 q � "' d N O Qu O O '^ W. ti O M O h O h `�i, M C1 N of N rn fr, 69 s9 6s 64 69 64 Vs 69 69 d p o O o O O 0 do $ kn O o 00 vb�ups � a 0 0 o 0 0 o 3 01 i N .•� V1 - cs n h in 65 m o 00 n o 0 000 0 CD o a v N N 00 •�' � � 5009 60 z Qya H N a� .�L yy G .emu CCJ� nwj 12r .i F 0.l I d � e.r t'C Q.c Igo vam v'] 1 c7u'1n]I ACZ 1 Wdbp ! bm C RM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 80 / DATE: 8/21195 " SECTION: ORIGINATING DEFT: ITEM NABY Reports and Recommendations City Administration CRIPTION: PREPAAmendment to Graham Arena Management Agreement ' D. Ols The County has been working with Johnson Controls, Inc., to come up with energy saving building improvements for County owned buildings. Attached are the recommendations for specific improvements for Graham Arena East and West that total $141,180. Under the performance contract program, Johnson Controls, Inc., guarantees that there will be energy savings realized over a period of years that will pay back both the up front capital costs including interest and the increased operation and maintenance costs. In the case of the proposed improvements to Graham Arena, the cumulative savings would begin in the 9th year in the amount of $3,801 and based on their projections, would amount to $313,731 after twenty years. Since the County proposes to finance these improvements, they are requesting an amendment to the current Management Agreement to include the loan payment for these improvements as an operating expense. The proposed term of the financing is 10 years. Based on the cash flow analysis prepared by Johnson Controls, Inc., the greatest out-of-pocket expense would be in year one in the amount of $2,926 which would be split 50/50 between the City and County. The Park Department has been involved with the performance contract program for this building with .County staff and is recommending approval of this amendment to the Management Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the proposed amendment to the Graham Arena Management Agreement with Olmsted County to include as an operating expense the loan payment and operation and maintenance costs included in the 1995 Performance Contract between Olmsted County and Johnson Controls, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second TAW PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507l285-8231 MEMORANDUM TO: Roy Sutherland, Director Rochester Park and Recreation FROM: Michael Cousino, Director. Olmsted County Public Works DATE: August 2, 1995 SUBJECT: Graham Arena Management Agreement Performance Contract The County Board approved the Performance Contract with Johnson Controls, Inc. on July 18, 1995. Johnson Controls must now complete the payment/performance bonds andother requirements before they are issued a Notice To Proceed with the Contract. There has been delay in securing the lease/purchase financing agreement with Norwest Bank. On August 1, 1995, the County Board had to schedule a Public Hearing on August 15 to satisfy the bank requirements. The bank has also indicated that they wish to increase the interest rate from 5.38% to 5.43% to cover their additional costs of bond council to review the current County leases on buildings. If all goes well, the funding issues should be resolved on August 15, 1995. My June 9, 1995 memo outlined the suggested changes in the Graham Arena Management Agreement to include the cost of the County Performance Contract principal and interest payments and new operation and maintenance payments for both arenas. We will not be able to provide an updated Cash Flow Analysis until the financing is resolved on the 15th. However, the interest rates should be lower than the 5.8% that was used in the previously submitted Cash Flow Analysis on June 9, 1995. We will request County Board approval of a Revised Graham Arena Management Agreement on August 15. Perhaps you could schedule City Council consideration on August 21. We'll provide an updated Cash Flow Analysis that will become part of an Attachment to the Agreement. Attached is the revised management agreement and attachments. Please call if you have questions on this matter. MTC:kal c Dave Olson "^ ^ Richard Devlin Bob Bendzick p Bob McIntosh AN EQUAL OPPofiTtlNiTYfAFFlRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks 8 Agriculture 11 7 Solid Waste ATTACI-ZENT A Iq c 0 • �app O N m 0-0Ol aM. off � f` Oi N O m � p o+ c on 1 p T _O p A N co E aaa cc c m- w m p c q S ZaQ c o ILI ZU L' M N co N It n Ym ^ A C we b p i7 0 N N o W � M O 1� O f� n c W wi' O m aD m V afl O N 16 e e W m N M � I� f` E A .—N. W MmmMNM�p OmMM 7 ^ O C C4 � (' " � N N N M Cl) q q 0 aD df N N W N m� N N M O N O W N m m m C C WC-4 1 � NNedOg6(4 g 0; v v � N M 7 N Y of m ad W 0 fV a of fr Of Q H N N N N N M M N M MCl) N p O M 0 0 m W V V O m 0 0 N O m N N MOM 1� M C �NMemWMhNme Ofmao W.-ema� >q N N N N N N N N e-M- aN�/ N M M M V Y O V N N W co co p p . . i . . i i . . . . i . . . . r . . i . N C A 7 � U m N 7$ OI N O M m elf O t0 O P I� N W M m aaaDDD V W N N m Y1 N O m tO 1(1 Y1 M QOa0 C6aai of 006 C4aMa7 `N NNa` o an L cli �.mON OMiO tm9 m M mOMN NOON OOW/m O � � 10 Mn atm m a0 W M vi W N 1't 01 at m 7> M N m'^ a0 of O N a N m W O N M P1 N N N N N M M M O W M N m N 9 C N tO m 0 v O N W . %D N N N N Y W M W 00 M p M 4M em N aD CCCU1 (41, N CO e OmMOmM Q E o f N N N N m m N ..... ri .... Wj . ~ 4 MNN W NNMMN W N W" 4& aNN N 4* N 4*am7 ggC 6 fA T�COn�mNm Nm{p((pp�m mWmWO�MmmN O O N m Of N co N N W W f� oaf N pmm N m W N m O Y m N h N f't N m" O M O m e d b T t0 i0 fD A P aD a0 aD Oi Oi O O � � N P'1 Of � � N 1� p p q N c d w <� c:ma�►a�a�wa�wwa�sww a E isr:r:�:�:r`isisisn n Jit N N N N N N w N N N N O N M f aH m n a0 W O' M M^' F OI a 119 eference: Building Improvement Measures Descriptions Marked With 'X' on Summary Table (page 45)." yOU7R PARTNER IN GOVERNMENT ...65 GAW GRAIIAINI ARENA WEST GAW-1 Lichting Efficiency Imorovement� - .eneral Class III electronic ballasts and T8 lamps with improved color rendering Replacement of incandescent fixtures with T8 fluorescent system Replacement of existing rink area fluorescent system with bi-level HID - Metal Halide lighting system Replacement of incandescent exit signs with new LED units Standardization of lamps, ballasts and fixtures Lamp and PCB ballast recycling See Appendix for detailed lighting retrofit breakout GAW-2a Facility Management System --Control Direct digital control Night setback capabilities Remote monitoring and control Note: owner responsible for providing dedicated phone line and all costs associated with this line. Annual preventative maintenance and repair GAW-2b F aeility �"anaoement Svctem -Monitor Remote monitoring capabilities (1-e. temperature) Remote alarm monitoring Install new programmable thermostats • Note: owner responsible for providing dedicated phone line and all costs associated with this line. • Annual preventative maintenance and repair GAW-3 1 t —atic Temp an,r control Replace drafty exhaust dampers with automated dampers, including control wiring and new motors Calibrate and/or repair all automatic temperature controls Annual preventative maintenance GAW-4 Hearin Svstem Impr6vemmu Hot water boiler replacement GAW-52 �t Cvct m improvements Reniace Three Furnaces . R=lace three (3) fuma= Annual preventative maintenance services Energizing the Worlang Envvwnmenr • Summary Table (page 45)." YOUR PARTNER IN GOVERNMENT ...66 GAW-5b Heating System Improvements - Repair Two Furnaces r93 Repair two (2) furnaces • Annual preventative maintenance services • GAW-6 Refrigeration System improvement - Variable Sneed Drive For Brine Pump/Low E Ceiling • Smandrive controlled variable speed drive on brine pump with infrared ice temperature controller Install a new Low-E ceiling to reduce heat loss and refrigeration costs • Annual preventative maintenance GAW-7 New Cooling Tower • Install new cross flow cooling tower with vertical discharge • Install variable speed drive on condenser water pump GAW-8 B +ildi g Fnvelope Improvements - New Seals on all Entrance Doors • Install new seals on all entrance doors GAW-9a Guarantee Monitoring and Training- Facility Monitoring • Remote facility monitoring • Monthly energy reports • Quarterly energy savings review meetings Annual savings guarantee reconciliation • Annual on -going training of maintenance personnel GAW-9b Guarantee Monitoring.- Performance Measurement • Measurement of performance • Annual savings guarantee reconciliation Energising the Working Environment •J15HNSON CONT "Reference: Building Improvement Measures Descriptions Marked With 'V an Summary Table (page 45)." YOUR PARTNER IN GOVERiV1AENT ...67 GAE GRAHAM ARENA EAST GAE-1 I :ohtin� icienecv improvements . • Class III electronic ballasts, specular reflectors and T8 lamps with improved color rendering • Standardization of lamps, ballasts and fixtures • Lamp and PCB ballast recycling See Appendix,for detailed lighting retrofit breakout GAE-2 HeatingSvetem Tmprovements • Annual preventative maintenance GAE-3 Cooling_SSvtem Improvements Annual preventative maintenance GA.E4a Guarantee Monitoring Performance Measuretttent • Measurement of performance • Annual savings guarantee reconciliation GAE4b Guaranteeylonitorin2 - Stipulated Calculated savings stipulated •- Enwgising dte Working Bttvwano au v ATTACHMENT E � � � � j � ■ 5 w _ - # K f | �_ t | | • . � �}■ � ■ `77! , - � ! . ■ . . | - } . ■ � § { .| - - . - f��� �- ` } ! ( k � : ■� | � ! ;| ; ■ ! � | $ � | li�a ` ■ . � ! | \ $ } } 1 2 0 !.3 ■! !2 f ■ ■ | | ■ ■ § | f at . . . . . 2 ' ■ ! !- ! . . . . � | ! ! ! ! | | | | | � REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 -17 DATE: 8121 /95 4 t AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations City Admn/Development Dist 4�,—(v EM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Council Authorization to Bid Civic Center Expansion Doug Knott .. Phase I of the Civic Center Expansion project is ready for bidding. Plans and specifications will be ready for contractors to pick up on August 23, 1995. The schedule calls for a bid opening on September 26, 1995 with award at the October 2, 1995 Council meeting. The final design incorporates the changes requested by the CUE Committee. This includes the use of a pre -cast material similar in color to the pre -cast stone used on the Library and Government Center. There is also an entry with a vestibule in front of the theater. Staff is concerned about the overall cost of the project. We have identified a number of alternates which can be added if the bids are favorable. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A4utthorization to solicit bids for Phase I of the Civic Center Expansion project. V` OUNCIL ACTION: Motion Dy: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l&Jq DATE: 8/21 /95 4 4 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations City Admn/Development Dist S ,-7 TEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Government Center Skyway Bids Doug Knott Bids for the Government Center skyway were opened on August 1, 1995. The bid tabulation sheet is attached. Staff recommends award to the lower bidder - Alvin E. Benike, Inc. Benike's base bid is $1,732,300. Staff recommends the Council also accept alternate No.'s. 3, 4, and 5 (described below). This will bring the total contract amount up to $2,094,700. For purposes of comparison, the original base bid last spring was $2,380,000. Re -design and re -bidding resulted in a savings of $647,700. Fontaine will be responsible for approximately $397,000 of the construction costs plus their pro-rata share of the architectural and other miscellaneous costs. The City's share will be paid from tax increments. Five alternates were identified in the bids. Alternate No. 1 would have widened the stair tower in the existing 2nd Street Ramp. This alternate can always be done at a later date. Alternate No. 2 was a sand blast finish on the bridge piers. Alternate No. 3 is the Fontaine link. This alternate must be accepted as part of the project. It was included only as an alternate to isolate the cost which will be paid by Fontaine. Alternate No. -4 is the Johnson Control system. If this alternate is accepted, the heating and cooling controls will tie into the County system. The final alternate is for the security system and card access readers. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Award the bid for the Government Center Skyway including alternates 3, 4, and 5 to Alvin E. Benike, Inc. in the amount of $2,094,700, subject to Fontaine Tower Ltd. Partnership and Olmsted County entering into a skyway agreement with the City. M = 'v A�tf OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:� Q P to: :Z,,O, " '' Hammel Greenn Abraramson, Inc. UUIIVV// Architecture • Engineering • interior Design 1201 Harmon Place Minneapolis. Minnesota 55403-1985 Telephone 512 • 337 • 4100 Teleiax 512 • 332 • 9013 1,r% w ...... • IIV/� 3 August 1995 Mr. Doug Knott Downtown Development Director City of Rochester 224 First Avenue Southwest Rochester, Minnesota 55902 Re: Government Center Skyway HGA Commission Number 1009.009.01 Dear Mr. Knott: ,0 sRdFXSD=CrDIALNLMM 612/337-4103 Bids for the Government Center skyway in Rochester were opened at 1:00 p.m., August 1, 1995. We have reviewed those bids and provide the enclosed copy of the tabulations. The numbers presented have been correctly transferred and referenced to the bids submitted. We are also returning one copy of the bids, we will keep the other copy and bid bond forms in our files. Assuming the acceptance of Alternate 3 - Fontaine Link, Alternate 4 - Computerized Energy Controls, and Alternate 5 - Security Systems. The following contractors are the low general bidders: A.E. Benike $2,094,700 Bor-Son $2,181,400 Knutson $2,205,500 We have reviewed combinations of alternates. The low bidder would not be changed by any of the various potential combinations of Alternates 1 through 5. We therefore recommend that the city award the contract to A.E. Benike, Inc., and per your direction, we will notify them on your behalf. You have 35 days from the opening of bids to make the announcement on the award, however, the earlier that you can award to the contractors, the more time there will be to coordinate and schedule the project. 0 a IA^ w _. _.. as � Mr. Doug Knott 3 August 1995 Page 2 The bulk of the bidders were within $20,000 of each other, however, the low bid was low by about $90,000. We also understand that a bid which was not received on time would have been lower than the accepted low bid. This is good news in that the bids were close, the contractors apparently understood the documents reasonably well and the low bidder wasn't down there all by himself. Furthermore, from HGA's point of view, we are pleased with the quality of contractors that bid the project and we believe the team that was successful is capable of doing an excellent job of construction for the City of Rochester. It is our understanding that the city will not be able to award until August 21; therefore, we suggest that HGA issue a letter advising A.E. Ba&e of your intent to award so that they may start planning, engineering and permit processes for construction. You should have your legal consul review the owner's obligations under the conditions of the contract, especially reference owner's insurance requirements. Congratulations! We are pleased that the project will go ahead. Please advise us when the city is ready to award. Sincerely, HAMMEL GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC. OAA .M. Niemeyer, AIA .. Vice President CMN49S. WP6;mm Enclosure cc: Roger Nelson, HGA Harry Wilcox, HGA ;,o a.. 11 I E �UJL' $ 8 O O 8 8 8 IZ V C y QQ 8 r r+ n e n c C �• a•' V^ a n pp n < L IY JC QQ g Q H L '9 $ �• N N r: N N N 4 m N eat P n VVV x r Qf Oo W "L m •L m m d� oz m <m 0 • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CHARTER COMMISSION TEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO CANCEL PUBLIC HEARING ON CHARTER AMENDMENT BY ORDINANCE MEETING 903 DATE: 8/21195 ITTEM NO. `'45 PREPARED BY: p.(xos ee, The Charter Commission proposed that the City Council amend the Rochester Home Rule Charter as it relates to the evaluation and compensation setting of department heads of charter boards. The proposed amendment would 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. The Charter Commission has heard that there was negative reaction to the proposal, and that the amendment cannot be made by ordinance which requires a unanimous verdict. Therefore, the Charter Commission withdraws it recommendation and asks the council to cancel the public hearing proposed for September 5, 1995. By proposing this amendment, the Charter Commission, s intent was to provide consistency in the treatment of the department heads working under the direction of a charter board. The proposed amendment was not considered a signif icant substantive change to what already exists in the charter. By charter, the Library Board has the authority to "appoint, employ and remove a suitable librarian and necessary assistants subject to any employment procedures established by the charter or the common council, and fix their compensations." By charter the Park Board has the authority to f4employ and remove a superintendent of parks and recreation and such other agents and employees as it shall deem necessary subject to any employment procedures as may be established by this charter or the c ammon council. Compensation shall be fixed by the board, subject to revision by the common council. " By charter the Utility Board has the authority to "appoint, employ and remove a general manager and such other employees as it may deem necessary, subj ect to any employment procedures established by this charter or the common council, and fix their compensation with the concurrence of the common council." The Charter Commission will be revisiting this issue in future meetings. Any comments or recommendations put forth by the common council or individual councilmembers will by willingly accepted and considered. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, cancel the public hearing on the proposed charter amendment originally scheduled for Tuesday, September 5, 1995. COUNCILACTION: Motionby: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 016 DATE: 08-21-95 L r i. AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations City Clerk L -9 TEM DESCRIPTION: Expansion of Records Center in Basement of Rochester PREPARED ElY. International Airport Judy Scherr The City Clerk's Office currently utilizes approximately 2500 square feet of storage space in the basement of the Rochester International Airport. The space contains inactive and/or permanent records housed since the early 1980's and has been expanded twice since its initial start. The space is also utilized for storage of the City and County voting machines and ballot boxes and preparation space for each election. At the current time, the area is filled to capacity. With the move to the new City Hall the expansion of the Airport facility becomes imminent for storage of permanent records and those that are not applicable to optical imaging technology. It is, therefore, requested at this time that an additional area of the Airport basement be finished to accommodate records storage for City departments. The east end of the basement contains approximately 6500 square feet that can be utilized to accommodate 10,000 linear feet of open shelving. This area needs to be finished with a sump/tile system, fire sprinklers, dehumidification system, cement finishing, asbestos removal and lighting. TSP Engineering (the current Airport contractor) and Public Works have reviewed the necessary improvements. TSP estimates the project cost at $84,000 including their fee to serve as project inspector. We anticipate that work needs to be completed by mid -November to allow for storage of records now contained at the old City Hall which will not need to be stored and used at the new City Hall. The timeline should give City Hall departments adequate packing and moving time for the old records. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to authorize TSP Engineers to prepare plans and specifications for the finishing of o([ the Rochester International Basement area and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids. V /✓o� to Low�t� P,L( r e nk COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: wz REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ofnIIA AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATINGDEPT: ITEMNO. Reports and Recommendations Rochester Public Library EMDESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: PHOTOCOPIER CONCESSION Judith Taylor We received three responses to a request for quotes on a photocopier concession and one lease/purchase response; the latter was rejected as not responsive to the nature of the proposal. After review of the proposals, library staff recommend acceptance of the proposal from Business Imaging Solutions for two new Toshiba 2540 copying machines. Their machines are the smallest so will fit best into our limited space. Warm-up time is fastest, all other requirements are met. Its speed per copy is slower than the other two quotes but since these copiers are used only by the public, one copy at a time, this is not important. A check of a business equipment rating source listed this model Toshiba as the best of the lower -end quantity copiers, which is what we need for this public use. These copiers are to be installed according to contract, prior to the new library opening date. Staff also recommend acceptance of the only proposal for a book copier, that of Business Imaging Solutions, if the company will accept a December installation date rather than the earlier date listed in the contract. Reason: we wish to limit the number of new -type machines we must teach the public to use during the early weeks the new library is open. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Acceptance of the concession proposal from Business Imaging Solutions for two Toshiba 2540 photocopiers to be installed prior to the opening of the new library and one book copier to be installed in December. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/2 1795 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS August 17, 1995 PLANNING I _ Annexation by Ordinance Petition #95-14 by R L. Hexum and Associates PREPA of 79.5 Acres of Vacant Land Located in the NW 1/4 of Section 25, lane City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on August 9, 1995. Since this request includes an area larger than 60 acres, the annexation is proceeding under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 5. This provision of the statutes gives the Townboard 90 days to file an objection, and does not require that the City hold a public hearing. The Commission found that this property is adjacent to the City limds and can be served by City services. The Planning Commission therefore recommends approval of this request. Motion by Bellinger to recommend approval of Annexation by Ordinance Petition #95-14, seconded by Suk. The motion carried 6-0. Planning Department Recommendadon: See attached staff report dated August 3, 1995. Townboard Action: The Rochester Townboard reviewed this petition at their meeting on August 16, 1995. The Townboard voted not to object to this annexation and waived the 90-day review period. Property Taxes: No propety tax cash payments are required to be made by the City to the Township in the case of annexation by ordinance under MS 414.033, Subdivision S. Council Action Needed., 1. If the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance annexing this property under Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 5, to be adopted and transmitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated August 3, 1996 2. Townboard Action Form Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: ,Legal Description Attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This Rem will be considered sometime after 7.00 p.m. on Monday, August 21, 1995, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. ACTION: Motion by: Second J r% \t.0."L HE rE R. y/<\\ . R�TEDy EGi Si•:' ROCHESTER-OLMSTED 'LANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904.4744 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission c,nNls*=, :07 285-5232 '_ANNING FROM: Jeffrey Ellerbusch, Planner, y -=uSNG:HRA 507285-8_224 `.. BUILDING CODE 507'285-8213 AELCSEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: August 3,1995 RE: Petition to Annex by Ordinance #96-14, 79.5 acres of Vacant Land Described as the West Half of the Northwest Quarter, Section 25, Rochester Township Plannina Department Review. Applicant/Owner: R. L. Hexum & Associates, Inc. 805 Woodgate Lane. NW Rochester, MN 55961 Location of Property: Approximately one quarter mile east of TH 63 at the comer of St. Bridget Road SE (CSAH 20) and 45th Street SE.(CR 101) Existing Land Use: Agricultural Size: 79.5 Existing Zoning: A-4 (Ag Urban Expansion) and a portion of the property is in the Floodway and Floodfringe B. Future Zoning: This property has been petitioned for rezoning to the M- 1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) District along with approximately 64 acres of adjacent land already in the City limits. Land Use Plan: The Rochester Future Land Use Plan Map indicates this property for'Industrial' land use. The portion of this property subject to flooding from the South. Fork of Willow Creek is shown as "Flood Prone'. Adjacency to the Municipal The site is adjacent to the City limits along its entire Limits: west and north sides. 0 • AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Annexation #95-14 August 3, 1995 ozrr,�-1 • Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water mains are in place to the west of this parcel and would have to be extended to serve this property. The property is presently outside the Rochester Public Utilities electric service territory. General Development Plan: There is no general development plan for this property at this time. A general development plan will be required before any development is allowed to proceed. Wetlands: Consultants for the petitioner have completed their investigation and identification of regulated wetlands on the property. It is estimated that there are 6.4 acres of wetlands on this parcel. Flood Zoning: Approximately 0.54 acres is zoned Flaodway and 2.97 acres is in the 100 year flood fringe. The mapped floodplain is in the northwesterly comer of this parcel. Upon annexation the flood fringe will be classified as flood prone having to meet standards of no net loss of flood storage if the flood fringe is developed. Townboard Review: This annexation is for a parcel greater than 60 acres. . Annexation by ordinance in such instances is according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 5. On July 12, 1995, the applicant filed a copy of this petition with the Rochester Townboard. Statutes give the Townboard or Municipality 90 days to file an objection to the annexation with the Minnesota Municipal Board. The MMB will accept waivers of the 90 day period from the Townboard. No hearing is required for the adoption of an annexation ordinance under MS 414.033 Subdivision 5. Tax Reimbursement: No property tax cash payments are required to be made by the City to the Township in the case of annexation by ordinance under MS 414.033, Subdivision 5. Roads: This annexation includes the north half of the right of way for County Road 101, 45th Street SE. No special maintenance agreement is necessary because it is a county road. Referral Comments: • Report Attachments: 1. Rochester Public Works Department 2. RPU Water Division 3. RPU Power Division 4. Rochester Fire Department 1. Referral Comments (4 letters) Page 3 a� Annexation #95-14 August 3, 1995 2. Location Map 3. Future Land Use Map 4. Flood Plain Map 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). The City can proceed immediately to adopt an ordinance annexing this property only if a waiver of the 90 day period is granted by the Townboard. If no waiver is received, the City cannot adopt an ordinance until the 90 day period has expired which would be the Council meeting of October 16, 1995. If an objection is filed to the annexation by the Townboard, the Minnesota Municipal Board will hold a hearing and determine if the property should be annexed. • MM11I .0..1 ar3,�1' L CENTER • u ul AL i Erse ANNEXArick DR&WO Bq .)'rF6u-)Er- t'LUuK)6 � ROCHESTER July 26. 1995 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FROM: Department of Public Works DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1602 4th Street S E Rochester, MN 55904-s7!8 (507) 281-6008 FAX -(507) 281-6216 RE: ANNEXATION PETITION #95--14 BY R.L. HEXUM & ASSOCIATES TO ANNEX 79.5 ACRES OF UNPLATTED LAND LOCATED EAST OF ST. BRIDGET'S ROAD AND NORTH OF 45TH STREET SE The Department of Public Works comments are as follows: . 1. Assessments - (see attached letter to Mr. H.D. Atkinson). a2i10 An Paul0"o faiq Ewpbye. VU-n%TMU CT' 4W ROCHESTER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1602 41h Street S.E. Rochester, MN H5 4 4718 507) 291 b0 8 F.=x #(507) 281-6216 May 22,1995 Mr- H.D. Atkinson 6400-18th Avenue N.W. Rochester,Mn. 55901 Dear Mr. Atkinson, The Department of Public Works has completed a review of two • parcels owned by C.A.M.P., Inc. in the St. Bridgets Road area. The two parcels in question and anticipated assessments required when development occurs are: • 05-5143-00100 C.A.M-P- Inc. Theproperty consists of: 64.33 acres Total Acres - .95 acres TH 63 R.O.W. - .25 acres St. Bridgets R.O.W. - 3.60 acres St. Bridgets R.O.W. -24.26 acres Wetlands 35.27 acres Assessable J8868 Willow Water Tower Original Assessment Rate 51022._? Interest @ 7.5 ,from 02/22/89 to 05/22/95 2299 days x year/365 days x 7.5% x $1022.18 Current Assessment Rate J8868 as of May 22,1995 $1505-106 Interest will accrue at 7.5% for a maximum of ten years. i A. Egwl Oppmrmrdy F-P&, o • 05-5143-00100 C.A.M.? Inc continued J8989 Trunkline Sanitary Sewer on East Side TH 63 South Portions of the property are in the J8989 sewer district and will be assessed for that project. Original Assessment Rate $487.11 Interest @ 7.5$ from 06/19/89 to 05/22/95 Current Assessment Rate J8989 as of May 22, 95 $703.51 Interest will accrue at 7.5$ for a, maximum of ten years. Sewer Service Availability Fee = $1100.00 per acre (1995 rate) Portions of property not in the J8989 sewer district will be Subject to a Sewer Availability Fee. 44 30300 C.A.M.P. Inc. • The property consists of: 79.30 acres Total Acres - 1.00 acres St. Bridgets R.O.W. - 2.64 acres Wetlands 75.86 acres Assessable Water Service Availability Fee = $1100.00 per acre (1995 rate) Property is outside the Willow water Tower District and will, therefore be subject to a water Availability Fee. J8989 Trunkline Sanitary Sewer on East Side TH 63 South Portions of the parcel are in the J8989 sewer district and will be assessed for that project. The current assessment rate for J8989 is $703.51 per acre. Sewer Availability Fee = $1100.00 per acre (1995 rate) Portions of property not in the J8989 sewer district will be subject to a Sewer Availability Fee. . 0 Note: (for both parcels) 1. Under current City of Rochester policy assessments will not be levied until the property is annexed and a request is made to connect with the City sewer and water system. Any modifications to the City policy could result in the assessments being levied against the parcels prior to the property being developed. 2. Future assessments for water tower .and trunkline sanitary sewer could be made in lieu of the fees. 3. Future projects affecting the property will be assessed according to City assessment policy. 4. The acreage reduction for R.O_W_ and wetlands is based on information you provided to the Department of Public Works. If you have any further questions regarding the properties, feel free to contact me at 281-6004. Sincerely, JM�es M. Loehr Assessment Manager F WCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES July 21, 1995 Rochester-Ohnsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 4000 E. River Rd.. N.E. Rochester, MN 5905-2813 0-1540 FAX: 5 FAX: 01/280-15t2 REFERENCE: Annexation Petition 95-14 by R. L. Hexum & Associates to annex 79.5 acres of unplatted land located east of St. Bridget's Road and north of 45 Street SE, in the West 1/2 of the NW 1/4, Section 25, Rochester Township. Dear Ms. Decklever: Our review of referenced annexation is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property will be subject to either the current water availability fee or for the assessments for the Willow Heights storage facility. 2. The area can be served by extending a water main along St. Bridget's Road near Lesmiester Truck Center to the area being petitioned for annexation. - Please contact us at 507-2M1505 if you have questions. Very truly yours, Harold E. Wobschall Senior Engineering Technician Water Division �►1 j& 2 5 S96 is aig 4000 E. River Rd.. N.E. Rochester. MN 55906-2813 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 507/280-1581 July 21, 1995 TO: Rose Decklever, Planning Division Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Roger Kanestadt, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Annexation Petition #95-14 by R.L Hexurn & Associates to annex 79.5 acres of unplatted land located east of St. Bridget's Road and north of 45th Street SE in the west 1/2 of the NW 1/4, Section 25, Rochester Township. RPU's Power Division has no objections to the above, as it is outside our 1994 service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve the total area in the future. Sincerely, Roger Kanestadt ks c: R. Pawelski W. Lorber A. Amundson T. Adkins, City Attorney J. Chase, Attorney I� . r FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 21, 1995 TO: Rose Decklever, Planning FROM: Lyle E. Felsch, Deputy Chief SUBJECT: Annexation 195-14 Hexum & Assoc. 79.5 acres at St. Bridget's Rd & 45 St SE The fire department has no objection to the annexation of the above noted property into the city. The property is subject to the requirements of the Rochester fire code as it applies to the respective existing occupancies. Any subsequent changes of use, occupancy, or operations are subject to compliance with the building and fire code including all required permits. 0 • � =w � � his •" � �� =-. - P <- � - _ +f+ff ....w.l . V.. 95 Ajss,5=m OIL Aahl. / 201 x ZONE X �T ZONE X a 15, x RM 27! LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY NATIONAL RAN IK9X MGF nwAIN X 10 ZONE South Fork O X Willow Creek FIRM III " li, lljj; FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP LZONE OLMSTED COUNTY,O MINNESOTA III�. �.\'D NCORPORA.TID AREAS ; Ihl' , EFFECIWE SATE: APRIL 17, Ins �II FNcd Emupq Mm p— A60I / City Of Rochesmtt 275246 aril SIT SE ' -AL LEGEND KTUAFLOW AREAS NIRgATED ® 0.00DWAY AREAS N ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS IOIm R A,q d SRo.,�r Feel; d heel � never 1ple d `M : �M J'�eR yr♦ Ye M � qw Peed O/ Ywr Yaw mly.. Wirer OIMR ANEW F- L MEETINGo2#23 l DATE: 8/21/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works e 't,;z_ EM DESCRIPTION: Bids: Reconstruct/Rehabilitate 1st Ave. SW from PREPARED BY: 1st St. SW to 3rd St. SW Gillivray Bids were received and opened after 11:00 A.M., August 2, 1995 for the following local improvement project: Project 6301-3-95 J-2248 "Reconstruct/Rehabilitate 1st Avenue S.W. from 1st Street S.W. to 3rd Street S.W." The following bids were received: Doyle Conner $218,733.12 (low) Elcor Construction $258,950.45 Road Constructors $278,500.70 Engineers Estimate $180,000.00 The Public Works Department recommends the rejection of the bids for this work. The water portion of the work is approximately double the engineers estimate and would result in higher than normal assessments to the abutting owners. The Water Department concurs in this recommendation. We propose to redesign portions of the work and rebid the project next spring when the bidding climate may be more favorable. Actual construction of the work would be scheduled around the various downtown activities during the summer months. Council Action Reauested If the Council concurs with the recommendations of the Department of Public Works a resolution should be adopted rejecting the bids. 2 OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING vr��/ DATE: 8/2 l /95 4 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works S, ,IS EM DESCRIPTION: Increase in Maximum Fee for Yaggy Colby PREPARED BY: Engineering Contract on Civic Center Drive cGillivray This is a request to increase the maximum fee for engineering services for the rehabilitation of Civic Center Drive N.W. from 5th Avenue N.W. to 16th Avenue N.W. from $142,500 to $203,859. The fee increase is due to changes in the scope of services as follows: Redesign of roadway shoulders, storm sewer, and pavement and additional surveys. $22,428 Contaminated Soils investigation. $ 584 New traffic signals @ llth Ave. & 16th Ave. $15,904 Preparation of additional landscape plans. $ 4,947 Additional watermain (per Water Dept.) $10,677 Developing Partnering concept with Mn/DOT $ 1,019 Preliminary engineering study for 16th Ave. from Civic Center Drive to the north. $ 5,800 The changes were all requested or directed by the Department of Public Works. The project estimate increased from $1.4 M to $2.OM due to the additional work and changes in design. The engineers fees will be funded through the Municipal State Aid Account. Council Action Requested Approval of an increase in the maximum fee for engineering services to $203,859 for Project 6205-4-94, J-2239. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Reports and Recommendations Public Works DESCRIPTION: 13 ids: Resurfacing, Concrete Curb, Gutter- 41st St. NW/15 Ave to Summit Sq. 6241-94 J-9282 MEETING 0 DATE: 8/21/95 ITEM NO. r5 - /4 PREPARED BY: vray Bids were received and opened after 11:00 A.M., August 16, 1995 for the following local improvement project: Project 6241-94 J-9282 "Street Resurfacing, Concrete Curb & Gutter on 41st Street N.W. from 15th Avenue N.W. to Summit Square" The following bids were received: Road Constructors $128,158.02 Rochester Sand & Gravel $132,573.02 Elcor Construction $147,369.37 Engineers Estimate $122,000 The project was included in the 1994 Capital Budget (page 256) and is funded from Special Assessments and Municipal State Aid Funds. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to Road Constructors. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l DATE: 9/21/95 DA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works �( S DESCRIPTION: Proposal by Yaggy Colby for Project 9504-95 PREPARED BY: M ' llivray J-9352 y t}�/j 7 This is a proposal by Yaggy Colby Associates to provide design and construction services for 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 fee for design services is a lump sum amount of $29,500. Construction staking and inspection services will be at an hourly rate with a total fee not to exceed $25,000. p� If the Council approves the proposal, a resolution should be adopted ® authorizing the execution of a contract with Yaggy Colby Associates. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING R 31 DATE: 8/21/95 AGENDA SECTION`. ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. . � Reports and Recommendations Public Works v '/` DESCRIPTION: Assessment Agreements - Bel Air Drainage Ditch, PREPARED BY: Jim Lo hr J-9346. ld,4y The City has been petitioned to construct a Low Flow Concrete Flume in the Bel Air Drainageway on the North Line of Elton Hills Third Subdivision in a project known as Project No. 6354-95, J-9346. The Department of Public Works has prepared Assessment Agreements for the property owners abutting the project. The attached spread sheet lists the property owners that have signed the Assessment Agreements and the estimated amount of assessments for the respective property. These property owners have agreed to be assessed for the project for the mutual benefit of the abutting owners and the City of Rochester and not to contest the assessments when levied. The assessment rate is estimated at and will not exceed $10.00 per foot. The assessments will be levied when the project is completed and the final project quantities and costs have been determined. The assessments will be levied over a period not to exceed five years. The signed agreements represent 52%; of the total assessments to be levied for the project. 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Assessment Agreements. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second 2P� Concrete Flume in the Bel Air Drainaaewav . Project # 6354 - 95 J - 9346 Plat 8 Assessable AssessmM Estimated No. Taxpayer Address Parcel Foote Ft Rate 1 Ft AssessmM[ i Krueger, Elizabeth 3520. 10th Ln. N.W. 1073-00702 20.00 10.00 $M.00 2 Felnnlee Thomas 6 TeM 1031 - Chalet Drive N.W. 1073-01300 92A2 10.00 420 3 Crovewver, Frw*b 8 Catherine 1019 - Chalet Drive N.W. 1073-01500 72.00 10.00 $720.00 •r 4 Pascoe Midge 1013 - Chalet Ddve N.W. 1073-OIOW 72.00 10.00 S720.00 5 Sudwrland 8 Barbara tool - Chalet dire N.W. 107301700 72.00 10.00 $720.00 8 Fisher Arvin 6 Card 973. Chalet Drive N.W. 1073 )2000 75.97 10.00 $759.70 7 Mdersan 6 Judah 961 - Chalet Drive N.W. 1073-02200 85.77 10.00 $857.70 a Hiesland Barbara 3515 - 91/2 Ave. N.W. 1073-02500 88.40 10.00 .00 9 Zei" Michael 6 Patricia 3527 - 91/2 Ave. N.W. 1073-02700 38.50 10.00 SM.00 15 Shanahan Joe 3W8 -1 Oth Ln. N.W. ApL• 3 2778 MMM 3125 10.00 $312.50 I CooL Gem a, 27754MM 3125 10.00 S312.50 12 I LOMz Robert 6 Lamb 3614 - IOth Ln. N.W. APLST 277840807 3125 10.00 $312.50 13 Step James b M. Ruth 3014 - 101h Ln. N.W. AM ! 4 2770-000N 3125 10.00 $312.50 14 Amundson, K" E Jay 3832 - 101h Ln. N.W. 2779.01102 291.13 t0A0 $2,911.30 total 1MAO 103 08/15/95 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 33 / DATE: 8/21/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works - —1-7 EM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for Eastridge PREPARED BY: Subdivision Phase I. Project 9406, J-9313 RM ,Paine The plans provide for the construction of storm sewer in the intersection of Strathmore and Sheffield Lanes. Project 9406, J-9313. The new storm sewer was to be connected to inplace 24" CMP. The existing pipe was determined to be severely deteriorated. The Engineer, at that point, deemed it necessary to replace 23' of 2411 CMP under Strathmore Lane. Council Action Requested Adopt a resolution authorizing payment for extra work covered by NWSupplemetnal Agreement No. 1 for Project 9406 (J-9313). OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0) DATE: 8/21/95 Reports and Recommendations Public Works 0,18 DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for 4th St. SE; PREPARED 3rd to 11th Ave. 6204-2-94 J-2230 SAP159-119-05 RM.Pai-ne The plans provide for the replacement of various watermain and sanitary sewer along the project. Sanitary sewer had intended to be replaced in the 6th Ave. intersection but, inadvertently not included on the plan. The Engineer deemed it necessary to replace the sanitary sewer as it is in very poor condition. Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of extra work covered by Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for Project 6204-2-94, J-2230 S.A.P. 159- 119-05. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING� 420 DATE: 8/1 1/9? DA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations I Public Works e �/L7 DESCRIPTION: supplemental Agreement No. 1 for Mayo Run PREPARED BY: RM Pai Corridor Improvements - Pond EP-16, The plans provide for a large storm sewer detention structure to be constructed in the Mayo Run drainage area. City Project 9409A, J-4889 Located East of County Road 22 near Rochester Community College. The plans further provide for extensive plantings around the area of the pond. After opening and reviewing the bids, the Engineer deemed it appropriate to delete all plantings from the contract due to the high bid costs of these items. Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for Project No. 9409, J-4889 in the amount (decrease) of $101,665.00 has been prepared for the purpose of deleting those items from the contract. Adopt a resolution authorizing decrease in contract amount covered by Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for Project 9409, J-4889. Nv T�� {ale ����s ��•� lerr COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING101*t / DATE: 8/2 1/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: 19, ITEM NO..Reports and Recommendations Public Works/Traffic —9c) M!This 7isa ing Contract for Cascade Creek Trail PREPAREDD Ross BY* mendation to retain the firm of Yaggy Colby Associates to provide professional engineering services for City Project No. 7503-15- 96 (J-2249) "Cascade Creek Trail from the Zumbro River to 16th Ave. N.W.". This project is listed in the 1995 C.I.P., page 289. The City has been notified that the project qualifies for Federal Highway Funds through the ISTEA Program. The consultant would provide preliminary design drawings and conduct a presentation to the City Council. Prepare Mn/DOT and federal reports required by the program, prepare R.O.W. documents, construction plans with field staking and inspection. The plans will be drawn in metric units. The schedule is to complete plans and reports by January 1, 1996, with construction in 1996. Yaggy Colby Associates provided an estimated fee in the range of $13,000 to $16,000 which is within the recommended range for projects of this size. j! Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing City Officials to sign a VA. contract accepting the proposal of Yaggy- - AsGn�;ar to provide professional engineering services for City Project 7503-15-96 (J-2249) Cascade Creek Trail. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second 1gT•r4AVE J . a ti J �y a _ i `t2T� NW I 9T1h a_ 1 y �$ 9 6TH AVE 16 112 Avc trn 10- AVE v t5 1/2 Art `. 15TH AVE ` 14TH AVE r^• 13TH i AA 12 12Tri AVE 'F N I J IL /r Tm AVE - gT' _PArlAW, v w -+ LA t 6T� AVE LA I.= 7•fH i � AVE ` � _ � '—I T AVE FH !- 5"; AVE Sri AVE — ' 4« I AVE i4t'iii:2ND !AVET4 BROADWA" I , I I ' ?Si 1 A1% I NE I II VA_ c 3RC AVE NMV *Esrw00v` INOR7LJ n_ I SST °'•J^ BR LN AVE AVE I t r � 3RD I i A JkV--- � AVE t skiH 4 w ; ' `v -rru Ar REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 01�q 1 DATE: 8/21/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works EM DESCRIPTION:Bids: Project 7503-16-95 J-4946 - Walkway South PREPARED BY: Side 41st St. NW from W. Frontage Rd. to 31 Ave NW MacGillivray Bids were received and opened after,11:00 AM, August 18, 1995 for the following local improvement project: Project 7503-16-95 (J-4946) "Bituminous Walkway on South Side of 41st Street N.W. from west Frontage Road to 31st Avenue N.W." The following bids were received: Rochester Sand & Gravel $20,138.40 Elcor Construction $21,524.00 Shamrock $23,512.00 Engineers Estimate $20,866.00 The project will be funded 50% from Bike Trail Funds and 50% from DNR Cooperative Trail Grant Funds. Council Action Requested If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to Rochester Sand and Gravel. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATF• R/$0/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works Cd •a.D- IT�.IVI DESCRIPTION:40 Foot Driveway for Herbert Hoover School PREPARED BY: iMike Cox The City has received a request from Bill Anderson of Yaggy Colby Associates representing School District 535, to change the existing 28 foot approach to a 40 foot approach with 20 foot radius. There is a traffic conflict between the traffic using the school drive approach and the traffic on Elton Hills Drive. The larger approach should help relieve some of the safety concerns caused from traffic back up and site restrictions. The 40 foot width exceeds the maximum allowed by staff issued permits and must be approved by Council resolution. Staff has reviewed this request. The school buses use the approach to get to the pick up/drop off area and the larger approach is needed for the larger turning radius of the buses. Approved by:Date: 81119s Director of Public Works • Council Action Requested Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing a 40 foot driveway approach Elton Hills Drive N.W. to Herbert Hoover School. CeNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: .d� L 6- 0 A S 11 '95 11:41AM YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES P.1 • 717 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHEAST ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904 August 11, 1995 Mr. Mike Cox Rochester Public Works 1602 Fourth Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 307) 288.6464 FAX (507' 288.5058 Re: Hoover School Entrance Dear Mike: *t YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES ENQNEER$ • ARCHITECTS SURVEYOR; • P(ANNErz LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS As consultants for ISD #535 on the parking lot improvements at Hoover Elementary School we would like to request approval of a 40 foot wide entrance to theparking lot with 20 foot radii in lieu of the maximum 32 foot entrance with 15 foot radii as per city standards. This will allow buses to enter the parking lot off Elton Hills Drive without interfering with traffic leaving the lot. Please see the attached sketch of the proposed entrance as drawn by Dave Rossman and Mike Cox of Public Works. Sincerely, YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES William S...Anderson, P.E. WSA:drh enclosure 60-4330 215 NORTH ADAMS IS 15) 424-6344 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY .MASON CITY IOWA 50401 FAY (S1 i'. A74'-nla FMPI n1 rp REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 08-21-95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations City Clerk I E-23 fat- &TEM DESCRIPTION: Fireworks Display - John Marshall High School PREPARED BY: Judy Scherr The John Marshall Athletic Department is requesting approval of their"request to hold fireworks displays in connection with their football games at the Rochester School Stadium. The dates of the games are September 8 through November 10, 1995. It is my understanding that one rocket is set off when a touchdown is scored by the home team. They are also requesting a fireworks display at the June 7, 1996 graduation. The required insurance certificate has been received and approval has been given by the Fire Department. They will be complying with all aspects of the State Fire Code. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the fireworks displays for John Marshall High School for September 8 through November 10, 1995 and June 7, 1996. W COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING UHI C: 51, SECTION: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR GOVERNMENT CENTER SKYWAY AGREEMENT D. OLSON In conjunction with the Government Center Skyway project, the City needs to enter into a skyway agreement with Olmsted County and Fontaine Towers Limited Partnership (Gus Chafoulias and Peter Boosalis). The agreement is necessary to spell out the responsibilities for sharing in the construction as well as operations, maintenance and repair costs of the skyway. Prior to completion of the final plans and specifications, the County and Fontaine Towers Limited Partnership signed Memorandums of Understanding with the City that spelled out the basic understandings of all parties primarily dealing with cost sharing for both construction and operating costs. Construction Costs are Proposed to be Distributed as Follows: Fontaine will be responsible for 100% of the cost of the Fontaine Link which is the addition to their building to allow for the connection to the skyway. Based on the Benike bid, this amount is $287,000. Fontaine will also be responsible for 25% of the cost of the portion of the skyway bridge from their building to the Second Street Ramp. Based on the Benike bid, this amount is $110,000. Fontaine is also being requested to pay a pro-rata share of the design and other fees which is currently estimated to be $42,928. This brings their share up to $439,928. It is important to point out that the proposed agreement caps Fontaine's cost at $110,000 for the portion of the bridge between Fontaine and the Ramp. If there are any City initiated or Contractor initiated change orders, the City will pay 100% of these additional costs. However, if there are any change orders associated with the Fontaine Link or the addition to the Fontaine Towers building, Fontaine will be responsible for 100% of these additional costs. The County will not be paying any construction or design costs. berating.Maintenance, and Repair Costs are Proposed to be Distributed as Follows: Repair Costs are Proposed to be Distributed as Follows: Operating costs will include heating, cooling, electric, cleaning, security, repair and replacement costs associated with the skyway bridge. Each parry is responsible for these costs within their respective buildings. Fontaine will pay for 50% of the operating costs of the portion of the skyway bridge between their building and the Second Street Ramp. The County will pay for 68.4% of the skyway bridge between Fontaine and the Government Center, and the City will be responsible for the remaining 31.6%. The percentages are based on the amount of square footage each occupies in the Government Center complex. The County will be responsible for monitoring the security cameras at the Law Enforcement Center. NCIL ACTION: Motion Second by: Request for Council Action Government Center Skyway Agreement • August 21, 1995 page two Other aspects of this agreement address the need for easements to be dedicated by each party for either the skyway bridge itself or the skyway corridors through the City and County buildings as well as required insurance coverage. The remainder of the agreement addresses the standard skyway policies that are in place for the other existing skyway bridges. The County Board approved this agreement at the regular meeting on August 15, 1995, and both partners for Fontaine Towers Limited Partnership have agreed to and signed the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: �pr--'-'Approval of the Skyway Agreement with Olmsted County and Fontaine Towers Limited Partnership for the Government Center Skyway. A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES F. 1. RESOLUTIONS ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE F. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. MEETING e43 DATE: 8/21/95 ITEM NO. F PREPARED BY: TERRY ADKIN! F. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). (a) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sections 46.02, 46.03, and 46.04 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the Planting and Care of Trees and (b) krass and Other Permitted Activities in the Boulevard Areas. An Ordinance Amending Section 138.02 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the Criteria for the Establishment of a Residential Permit Parking Zone. (c) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sections 38.01, 38.02, and 38.08 and WLrr Creating and Enacting Sections 38.025, 38.150, 38.151, 38.152, and 38.153 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the Requirement for and the Suspension or Revocation of the Rental Property Registration Certificate. F.4. MISCELLANEOUS. a1 Amendment to Owner Contract; Watermain Extension to Serve Seneca Foods //i Warehouse on 20th Street S.E.; Seneca Foods Corporation Central Division and (k S.L. Contracting. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: A OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • MEMORANDUM DATE: August 17, 1995 TO: Mayor and Common Council J. FROM: David M. Goslee - Deputy City Attorney 4J A Assisted by Lisa Lunde and Jeff Pawelski, Law Clerks SUBJECT: Disorderly -Use Ordinance - General Information During the July 17, 1995, committee of the whole meeting and afterwards, there were numerous questions about what steps the city could or could not take in responding to the disorderly conduct occurring on some rental properties. City. Attorney Terry Adkins directed the staff to study and respond to these questions. We reviewed the following topics: 1) comparison of the state Public Nuisance Law and the proposed Rental Property Disorderly Use Ordinance; 2) the type and frequency of violations which are listed in the Disorderly Use Ordinance; 3) a short • discussion of the City's authority to regulate rental property owners; 4) potential defamation claims resulting from the publication of names of undesirable tenants; 5) potential discrimination claims resulting from refusal to rent based on prior criminal convictions or evictions; 6) the availability, costs and procedures to acquire criminal history information; and 7) the unlawful detainer procedure. This memorandum reflects the results of our study.- 1. COMPARISON OF THE STATE PUBLIC NUISANCE LAN AND THE RENTAL PROPERTY DISORDERLY USE ORDINANCE There was a suggestion that the City not adopt its own "rental property disorderly use" ordinance since state law, as of August 1, 1995, provides a similar scheme for abating nuisances related to property. This is a reference to recent amendments to Minn. Stat. S617.80 which is known as the Public Nuisance Law. The following is a description of that process and the recent amendments, as well as a comparison between that process and the one anticipated to follow from the "proposed city" ordinance. In 1987, the legislature adopted the Public Nuisance Law. The intent was to provide a way of closing down buildings where frequent acts of prostitution, controlled substance violations, gambling, illegal alcohol sales or firearm violations were occurring. The legislature considered 0 PROPOSED AMENDMEI August 8, 1995 1. On page 2, amend Section 38.150, subsection (2) so that it reads as follows: (2) there is currently no city ordinance which Provides a formal procedure by which the City can notify a rental Property owner or manager of the disorderly conduct occurring on the Property; 2. On page 3, amend Section 38.151 by adding the following definition: "Appropriate action" shall mean that action which a reasonable license holder would take based upon the facts and circumstances of each case so as to prevent a reoccurrence of the disorderly use. 3. On page 3, amend Section 38.152 by adding the words "specific units in" following the word "occupying" in the third line of subdivision 1. 4. On page 3, amend Section 38.152 by deleting the definition of appropriate action in the next -to -last sentence of subdivision 1. 5. On page 4, amend subdivision 4 by deleting the word "steps" in the fourth line and replacing it with the words "appropriate action". 6. on page 4, amend subdivision 5 by adding the word "appropriate" before the word "actions" in the fifth line and replacing the word "eliminate" with the word "prevent" in the sixth line. 7. on page 5, subdivision 6, line 4, delete the word "such" and replace with the words "a specific unit or specific units located on the". 8. on page 5, subdivision 6, delete the sentence that reads "Such suspension or revocation may be for all units in a given building or complex of buildings." 9. On page 5, subdivision 6, move the last sentence to the bottom of page 6 and identify it as subdivision 4 of section 38.153. 10. On page 5, subdivision 7, move the last sentence so that it appears on line 7 prior to the sentence that begins "Eviction proceedings shall not be ...". OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: August 9, 1995 TO: John Hunziker - President of Common Council lp FROM: Terry L. Adkins - Rochester City Attorney TO SUBJECT: Dave Busch's Proposed Amendments to Rental Housing Ordinance I reviewed Dave Busch's proposed amendments to the rental housing ordinance. The majority of them appear to be of a "housekeeping" nature and do not change any substantive provisions. I prepared a formal list of those housekeeping amendments and enclose a copy for your review. Since the ordinance has received its first reading, I cannot simply change the ordinance on my word processor. Instead, only the Common Council can approve any amendments to the ordinance. If it is your desire to adopt these amendments, then a councilmember needs to formally move their adoption at the August 21st Council meeting. The proposed amendments do not include all of Mr. Busch's suggestions. Several of Mr. Busch's amendments refer to substantive or policy issues. These include the appropriate person or entity to enforce the ordinance and the addition of other persons to the Rental Housing Complaint Board. Because these are not housekeeping changes and go to the policy issues involved in this matter, I am not comfortable incorporating these amendments without Council direction. Finally, Mr. Busch makes a couple of suggestions which I do not believe should be or need to be addressed in the ordinance. These include constitutional issues and cross-references to the Minnesota Public Nuisance Law. I hope this information is helpful to you. COUNCILMNfORD.AMD 'TI) these activities to constitute a nuisance. Three misdemeanor •convictions or two gross misdemeanor/felony convictions for the above acts within two years provided a basis for a civil suit enjoining the prohibited use and an order of abatement which essentially prohibited the use of the property for any purpose for a period of one year. Rochester used this process to close down a number of rap parlors during the prostitution sting operations of 1988 and 1989. The 1995 amendments changed the Public Nuisance Law in a number of ways. As of August 1, 1995, the abatement process can be used without the need for obtaining criminal convictions. In other words, state law does not require a criminal conviction before the prosecutor can take action against the nuisance. Proof that a criminal law has been violated is sufficient even if a criminal charge is not brought. Additionally, the number of incidents of illegal conduct needed to implement this process is reduced to two events within 12 months. For rental property which has identifiable rental units, the process applies to individual units and not the entire building. The court has the authority to enjoin the illegal conduct and to issue the order of abatement to close down the property or affected unit thereof for one year. The Public Nuisance Law process, as amended, may play out as follows: 1. The city attorney receives information from the police department indicating that two arrests for nuisance -related offenses (e.g prostitution, gambling, controlled substances, alcohol or firearms . violations) occurred from a particular building or rental unit within the last 12 months. (Arrests are not necessary but presumably would occur first. Also, the incidents may be of any combination of nuisance activities). 2. The city attorney sends notice to all interested parties. This includes the owner, lessee(s), their agents, or any other party maintaining or permitting the nuisance to occur. The notice identifies the nuisance maintained or permitted, summarizes the evidence of the violation, informs the interested party that failure to abate the nuisance activity within 30 days may result in legal action, and informs an owner of a right to have the lease cancelled. Assuming the nuisance is not abated to the satisfaction of the city attorney, a petition is filed with the district court asking for a temporary injunction. A hearing is held and, if proof of a nuisance is shown, the court issues a temporary injunction prohibiting certain conduct enjoined. Subsequently, the court will enter a permanent injunction and issue an order of abatement closing down the building or unit thereof. 4. The owner of rental property who has not been involved in the illegal conduct may make a motion with the court to cancel the lease with.the violating tenant. This motion may be made at any time after notice of the nuisance has been served by the city 0 EM attorney. The landlord may also assign to the city attorney the right to cancel the lease. If the lease is cancelled, the court • cannot order abatement and the rental property owner may continue to use the property in any legal manner. The Public Nuisance Law process has some obvious differences from the proposed Rochester "disorderly use" ordinance under which an owner of rental property.is required to take appropriate actions against tenants who have engaged in a disorderly use of the premises or face sanctions. The differences include the type of activities which are considered disorderly or a nuisance, the number of incidents which give rise to further action, who reviews the matter, the types of sanctions applied and the standard and burden of proof. The first difference involves conduct which may be considered disorderly or a nuisance. The proposed city ordinance defines certain activities as disorderly which are not defined as nuisances under state law. These activities include indecent conduct, loud parties and noises, obscenity, overcrowding, and disorderly conduct. These activities do not provide the basis for an injunction and order for abatement under the Public Nuisance Law. The second difference involves the number of incidents which are necessary prior to the initiation of action. Under the Public Nuisance Law, the city attorney may send a notice of nuisance to all interested parties following two incidents in 12 months. This notice is sufficient to initiate the process. Under the proposed city ordinance, notices are • mailed to the owner after each disorderly incident. The third notice is the one which may be used to initiate the review process. The third difference involves the body reviewing the matter for determination of appropriate action. Under the Public Nuisance Law, a district court judge determines the sufficiency of the evidence and determines whether an injunction or order for abatement is to be issued. The hearing delays sometimes found in district court actions may be evident in these proceedings as well. Recently, in an unrelated matter, this office faced a two month delay from the time of filing a. legal document until the actual date of the hearing. Under the proposed city ordinance, the rental housing review board initially reviews the matter and recommends whether a public hearing before the council is appropriate. Following any public hearing, the City Council determines whether sanctions are appropriate. Reasonable notice must be provided the property owner, but timing is otherwise at the control of the council. The fourth difference also involves the person initiating the abatement process. Under the Public Nuisance law process, the city attorney must first decide to send a notice. Under the proposed city ordinance, the third notice sent by the police or building inspectors initiates a review by the rental housing review board and subsequent referral to the council. 3 • 0%9a The fifth difference involves the sanctions to be applied. Under the Public Nuisance Law, a judge may impose an injunction prohibiting future nuisance behavior, may issue an abatement order prohibiting use of a building for up to one year, or may issue an order cancelling the lease where it is determined the tenant is the cause of the nuisance. Under the proposed city ordinance, the council may suspend or revoke a rental registration certificate, impose a civil fine up to the amount of one month's rent, or apply other conditions to the rental registration certificate designed to preclude future incidents of disorderly use. The sixth difference involves the standard and burden of proof. Under state law it is the burden of the city attorney to show that a nuisance exists. Each disorderly incident must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. This standard is not as strict as the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and is higher than the general civil standard of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Under the proposed ordinance the general civil standard of proof by a preponderance of the evidence shall apply. Thus, the burden of proof required by the Public Nuisance Law is higher than that required by the proposed city ordinance. In summary, the 1995 amendments to the Public Nuisance Law provide an additional tool which may be used to deal with nuisance properties. disorderly use ordinance. similarly, the proposed ordinance may be used with or without resort to the state law. There is no need for the Council to adopt or codify the Public Nuisance Law before utilizing its provisions. As of August 1, 1995, the provisions of the Public Nuisance Law, as amended, were available to the City of Rochester. 2. CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST TENANTS There was a suggestion that the City should place a greater emphasis on prosecuting disorderly tenants for their criminal acts. There was also concern that a large number of "disorderly use" incidents would occur for which notices would be sent, making the process time consuming and cumbersome. This office prosecutes tenants who violate the law. The following summary of conviction data shows some of the criminal actions taken against the violators and gives some indication of the numbers of notices which may be sent. Charlie Blum of Olmsted County Information Systems Center provided us with a conviction list of the various "disorderly use" offenses from which the following chart was created. This chart begins in 1991 to 0 4 show the frequency and trend of disorderly use violations.' The 1995 figures consider convictions through July 27th, 1995. 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Possession of Drugs/ Drug Paraphernalia ------ 0 2 3 6 13 Possession of Liquor ------------- 76 61 29 33 7 Disorderly Conduct --------------- 83 92 120 156 104 Public Nuisance/ Noisy Parties---------- 35 36 16 23 9 Totals (1991 to Present Possession of Drugs/ Drug Paraphernalia ----------------- 24 Possession of Liquor ------------------------ 206 Disorderly Conduct -------------------------- 537 Public Nuisance/ Noisy Parties--------------------- 119 The numbers provided refer to the actual number of convictions for each type of offense. Not all of these convictions are of the type that would result in disorderly use notices to property owners. We. suspect that only a small fraction of these offenses, except for the noisy party convictions, involved rental property. Please also consider that the conviction search prepared by the county IS.0 was limited to misdemeanor offenses. There are likely numerous felony drug convictions which do not appear that may result in the mailing of notices. Also, there may be other incidents in which charges were not filed or convictions were not obtained but which would constitute the basis for a disorderly use notice. 5 we questioned prosecutors in the city attorney's office as to the type and frequency of prosecutions from the "disorderly conduct" list in the proposed ordinance. The results of that survey are as follows: Prostitution --no charges in last 4-5 years Indecent Conduct --infrequent, 3-4 per year Participation in a Disorderly House --never Pornography --usually handled by the County Attorney Loud Parties--30-40 per year Gambling --few; generally related to liquor establishments Unlawful sale or possession of controlled substances--20-30 per year Unlawful sale of alcoholic beverages --few; prosecuted by County Attorney Dangerous Weapons--5-10 per year Disorderly Conduct --fairly common, more than 100 per year 3. CITY'S AUTHORITY TO LICENSE OCCUPATION Some questioned the authority of the City to license or regulate rental property owners/landlords and to revoke the license. Some claim that it is a violation of their equal protection rights to have their rental property regulated to a greater extent than owner -occupied residential property. Generally, however, a municipality acting under its authorized police power, may regulate by license any business, the unrestrained pursuit of which might affect injuriously the public health, morals, safety, or comfort. Power v. Nordstrom, 150 Minn. 228 (1921). Furthermore, because the proposed city ordinance is economic legislation, the courts require the city only to show minimal rational basis for its decision to regulate one category of property and not another. Recent experience suggests that the business of owning and operating residential rental properties is one which might affect injuriously the public health, morals, safety, or comfort. The "legislative intent" language of the proposed ordinance provides the basis for and an explanation of the need for this law and the decision to restrict the regulation to one particular class of property. We believe that the proposed city ordinance will withstand an equal protection challenge. The courts recognize the right of municipalities to license or otherwise regulate the following activities or occupations: building trades; liquor sales; tobacco sales; itinerant merchants; places of amusement; hazardous waste and petroleum handlers, and garbage collection. The power to license and otherwise regulate these businesses carries with it the authority to revoke the license or impose sanctions for violations. 6 W, 4. DEFAMATION CLAIMS FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE NAMES OF UNDESIRABLE TENANTS There was a suggestion that property owners and rental property managers share or otherwise publish the names of tenants considered to be undesirable. They asked the city to carry the burden of providing or publishing this information. The concern is that they open themselves and the City to claims of defamation and discrimination. The elements of a common law defamation action are listed in Stuempaes v. Parke. Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252,255 (Minn. 1980). In order for a statement to be considered defamatory, it must be communicated to someone else, it must be false, and it must tend to harm the person's reputation and to lower him in the estimation of the community. A landlord may be found liable to a particular tenant if false information is communicated to others which harms the tenant's reputation. A defamation claim will not lie if the information is truthful or, if false, does not injure the person's reputation. Defamation may also be a criminal offense under Minn. Stat. S 609.765 which provides for gross misdemeanor penalties. Criminal defamation is the communication of information which exposes a person or a group, class, or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace in society or injury to business or reputation. The offender must know that the information will have the above -described effect. It is a defense that the information is true and is communicated with good motives and for justifiable ends. It is also a defense if the communication consists of a fair and true report or a fair summary of any judicial, legislative, or other public or official proceedings. Defamation claims can be avoided by ensuring that only truthful. information about a tenant is conveyed to others. Landlords would be in the best position to ensure that the information they provide is truthful. Yet, there is a risk of criminal or civil defamation. And, there may be a question whether the city should bear the risk of publishing information about tenants which is provided by landlords who don't wish the publish the information themselves. 5. DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS RESULTING FROM REFUSAL TO RENT TO A TENANT WITH A HISTORY OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OR EVICTIONS Some property owners expressed concern over possible discrimination claims when refusing to rent a unit based on a history of criminal convictions or evictions. The degree of risk involved depends to a great extent on whether this process would have a disparate impact on a protected class. Minn. Stat. Ch. 363 is the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Section 363.03 subd. 2(1)(a) relates to discrimination in housing and states that it is an unfair discriminatory practice: 7 X/ (1) For an owner, lessee, sublessee, assignee, or managing . agent of, or other person having the right to sell, rent, or lease any real property, or any agent of any of these: (a) to refuse to sell, rent, or lease or otherwise deny to or withhold from any person or group of persons any real property because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regards to public assistance, disability or familial status. Minn.Stat. § 363.03 subd. 2(1)(a). In order to prove a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to rental property it must be shown that: 1) The charging party is a member of a protected minority under the Human Rights Act; 2) the charging party applied for and was qualified to rent or purchase certain property or housing; 3) the charging party was rejected; and 4) the housing or real property remained'available thereafter. Dept. of Human Rights V. Spiten, 424 N.W.2d 815 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988). The burden would then shift to the landlord to show there was a non- discriminatory reason for the rejection. Obviously, criminal history is not a category protected under the Human Rights Act. Therefore, landlords have a valid, non-discriminatory reason for refusing to rent to a particular person. Furthermore, the Human Rights Act does not require that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the healthorsafety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. Minn. Stat. $ 363.03, subd. 2a(d). However, although refusing to rent based on a prior history of criminal convictions or evictions is not a discriminatory reason for denying housing, the practice of screening tenants based on this criteria may have a discriminatory effect. (The courts sometimes refer to this theory as "disparate impact.") The federal courts, in construing the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), have held that discriminatory intent need not be shown and that proof of discriminatory effect may be sufficient to establish the tenant's case. 100 ALR Fed. 97, $ 2. Such an effect can be proved one of two ways: 1) the housing decision or practice in question had a greater adverse impact, either in absolute numbers or proportionately, on a protected minority group than on others; or 2) such decisions or practice tended to maintain existing segregated housing patterns. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a majority of the other federal courts, have held that to prove that the FHA has been violated, the • 8 plaintiff need only establish that the policies or practices in question • have a discriminatory effect. U.S. v. Black Jack, 508 F2d 1179 (8th Cir. 1974). In such cases where a discriminatory effect has been shown, the landlord should be prepared to make a rebuttal. The landlord must "prove that its conduct was justified as serving a legitimate, bona fide interest, and that this interest could not have been served by an alternative course of action which would have had a less discriminatory impact." 100 ALR Fed. 97. A strong rebuttal argument can be made that refusal to rent based on a criminal history is justified. Indeed, the provisions of the proposed city ordinance may assist a landlord to show that public interest which is furthered by the screening of prospective tenants and a review of their past tenant history. The argument may be somewhat weaker for a refusal based on eviction history alone. So far, two federal districts have held that the above mentioned standards do not apply to private landlords. Instead, they apply only to public officials. Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521 (7th Cir. 1990); Brown v. Artery Organization, Inc., 654 F.Supp. 1106 (DC Dist. Col. 1987). These courts would have the prospective tenant prove a discriminatory intent; not merely a discriminatory effect. The federal district in which Minnesota is located has not addressed this issue. This is still an open question in Minnesota's district. In summary, we found no cases that specifically addressed the issue of whether refusal to rent based on a criminal record or history of prior • evictions based on misconduct could constitute discrimination. On its face, the refusal to rent to a person with a criminal record or history of evictions appears to be a "legitimate, bona fide interest" providing a valid basis for refusal to rent on the landlord's part. However, a discrimination claim may be made if this practice has a disparate impact on certain protected classes resulting in an overall discriminatory effect. 6. AVAILABILITY OF CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION There was concern expressed that the ability to conduct a criminal history check for tenant screening purposes was time consuming and costly. We will summarize the criminal history information available and the process and costs associated with.obtaining this information. Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 is the Government Data Practices Act which governs the dissemination of information created, collected or maintained by public agencies. Minn. Stat. 5 13.82, subd. 2, addressesdata maintained by law enforcement agencies. In summary, certain data related to arrests, calls for service and response or incident data are considered public from the time of collection or creation. Other data becomes public only after an investigation is closed. Some data may never become public absent a court order. • d3 Minn. Stat. S 13.87 governs the dissemination of criminal history data • and reads in part as follows: Criminal history data maintained by agencies, political subdivisions and statewide systems are classified as private, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, except that data created, collected, or maintained by the bureau of criminal apprehension that identify an individual who was convicted of a crime and the offense of which the individual was convicted are public data for 15 years following the discharge of the sentence imposed for the offense. Thus, most criminal history information maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) is available for a period of 15 years following expiration of the sentence. State law requires the BCA to provide free access to a computer terminal from which criminal history information is available. This computer terminal is located at the BCA office in St. Paul. Otherwise, the BCA charges $8.00 per statewide inquiry if requested by mail or if a written report is requested. A charge of $24.00 is imposed for nationwide background checks. The BCA sets these fees. Individuals conducting a BCA inquiry on anyone other than themselves must do so in person unless they have the consent of the person on whom they are doing the investigation. Landlords could require, through their application process, that potential tenants provide either a written consent to the background inquiry or the actual background check requested by the potential tenant. Individuals may request background checks on themselves in person or by mail, subject to the fees listed above. Certain BCA information is available locally from the Records Division at the Police Department. Fingerprint cards, mug shots, and criminal arrest histories for the period up to 1993 are available at the police department for $4.00 per check. According to Pat Farrell, the police departments have been authorized to do background checks of rental property managers required under a new state law. The fee for this check is also $4.00 per person, but is free if the person makes the request himself. Other information is also available from the police department. Computer printouts of calls to a specific address. are now provided free of charge. Copies of police reports determined to be public are $4.00 for the first page, and $.10 for each additional page. Local arrest data is also available upon payment of a $4.00 fee. A committee appointed by the city council determined the fees charged by the police department. The police department indicated that the fees, although subject to review, should be continued to cover the cost of providing the information and to discourage casual interest in such reports. The Minnesota Supreme Court has also provided for access to most criminal and civil files held by court administrators. The "Rules of 0 10 m Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch" were adopted in 1988. • The rules provide for public access to most court files. There are exceptions for records related to domestic abuse, juvenile proceedings, corrections reports, judicial work product, and records otherwise nonpublic based on statute or court order. Those wishing to obtain court dispositions, either civil or criminal, may contact a clerk at the Court Administrator's office. There is a $5.00 charge for each inquiry conducted by a clerk. The money must be paid before any inquiry is made. There is, however, a computer available for public use free of charge outside the Court Administrator's office. Fees for these searches are set by the Court Administrator. In summary,. we found three entities which provide criminal history information: Rochester Police Department, Olmsted County, and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Each entity has its own procedures and establishes its own fees for copies of public records. The Council has immediate control over the Police Department's procedures, but must work with the other entities if they seek changes to the current practices. 6. UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCESS There were numerous comments concerning the difficulty and expense involved in evicting tenants under the State's unlawful detainer law. Perhaps an overview of the unlawful detainer process would be helpful. An action in unlawful detainer allows a landlord to recover possession • of his/her property from a tenant who adversely holds possession. Such actions are governed by Minn. Stat. ch. 566. The following is a summary of the statutory process for regaining possession of rental property. 1) Unlawful detainer actions allow for recovery of possession of the rental property. Other issues relating to damages and unpaid rent must be litigated separately. 2) An unlawful detainer action may be maintained at any time during the pendency of the lease, or within 3 years after termination of the lease. 3) An unlawful detainer action may be brought when the: a) tenant unlawfully detains the property (such unlawful detention may occur when there is a seizure under Minn. Stat. S 609.5317(1), which deals with the seizure of contraband or a controlled substance); or b) tenant withholds possession after expiration of a fixed term; or c) tenant withholds possession after termination of his/her term by notice to quit; or d) tenant holds possession contrary to the conditions or covenants in the lease; or 11 • n�g- e) tenant withholds possession after any rent becomes due according to the terms of his/her lease or agreement. 4) To begin an unlawful detainer action, the person complaining must first file a complaint with the court. The complaint must describe the premises, state the facts which authorize the recovery, and ask for restitution of the premises. The court administrator's office indicates that a $132 filing fee is required. That fee amount is set by state law. 5) The court will then issue a summons commanding the person against whom the complaint is made to appear before the court on a stated day and place. 6) The appearance shall not be less than 7 nor more than 14 days from the day of issuing the summons. When the court schedules appearances, they are to give priority to any unlawful detainer action brought because of a tenant's breach of the covenant not to sell, possess, or use drugs, or if the tenant is causing a nuisance or seriously endangers .the safety of other residents, their property, or the landlord's property. 7) A landlord may request expedited temporary relief by bringing an action under section 609.748 (restraining order for victims of harassment) or by filing a petition for a temporary restraining order along with the complaint. • 8) At the appearance the tenant may answer the complaint, and the court may hear and decide the action. Typically, the court will continue the trial which will be held within six days, and either party may demand a jury trial. The six day time period may be extended to up to three months if the tenant can prove that a material witness is needed for the tenant's case. 9) If the court finds for the landlord, the court shall immediately enter judgment returning the premises to the landlord and allowing the landlord to receive his or her costs. The court shall then issue a writ of restitution and determine in what period of time, from 0 to 7 days, the tenant must vacate the premises. This time period is to be very short if the tenant's breach is of the covenant not to sell, possess, or use drugs, or if the tenant is causing a nuisance or seriously endangers the safety of other residents, their property, or the landlord's property. 10) The writ of restitution gives the officer holding the writ, typically a sheriff's deputy, the power to demand that the tenant, or person holding possession, leave and take all family and personal property with them within 24 hours. If the tenant refuses to comply, the officer may use whatever assistance necessary, at the cost of the landlord, to remove everything from the property. If the tenant cannot be found, then the officer can remove all the property and store it, again at the expense of the landlord. The . 12 7�G landlord shall have a lien on the tenant's personal property until such costs of removal and storage are paid, or the landlord can enforce the lien and foreclose by public sale after 60 days has passed from the issuance of the writ. 11) If the tenant states to the court that there will be an appeal, then the writ shall not issue for 24 hours after the judgment. This does not apply if the tenant is holding over after expiration of the lease. In such a case, the landlord may post a bond to cover the costs if the decision is reversed and the writ may issue immediately. 12) A party has 10 days within which to appeal. The party that is appealing must post a bond to cover the costs of the. appeal, and to pay all rents and other damages accruing while the appeal is pending. If a party does appeal, then all further actions on the issue are stayed. Again, if the tenant is holding over after expiration of the lease, and the landlord posts a bond, the writ of restitution may be issued immediately. The city has.no authority to provide for an unlawful detainer procedure different from that provided by state law. The city is preempted from adopting any measures which would conflict with the existing law. The legislature must be contacted if substantive changes are desired. rZiWilkliAl The proposed Rochester "Disorderly Use" ordinance is scheduled for its • second reading on August 21, 1995. We prepared this memorandum to assist you in considering .the ordinance in light of the arguments made both against and in favor of its adoption. This office has received requests from both landlords and neighbors to amend the ordinance in several different manners. We have declined to make any substantive changes to the ordinance based on these requests. Following first reading of an ordinance, only the city council can amend the ordinance. We have therefore informed the parties to direct their requests and comments to the city council or to the city administrator for distribution to the council. We hope this memorandum will be helpful and informative to all interested. 13 • U_•111*1 fiViARKIN Pq I• MEETINGS / DATE: B-u-9s AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. ,"*&.60 f' 10" Public Works G �* II TEM DESCRIPTION: Proposal by McGhie & Betts: Project 9106-95 J- PREPARED BY: 9353 San. Sewer & WM to Gates Drive SW cGillivray 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 Requested If the Council approves the proposal, a resolution should be adopted authorizing the execution of a contract with McGhie & Betts. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: