HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2000_RegularCITY OF E
COUNCILIL AGENDA
j`�
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS v
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 26 NOVEMBER 6, 2000
REGULAR 7:00 P.M.
PAGE
(1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
(3-4) 1 } Bill Oswald Requests to be Heard RE: Stop Light at 551" Street and
West Circle Drive
(5-6) 2) Request for SewerNVater Services/Sunnydale Addition
(7-8) 3) Request for Sidewalk or Bikepath/Northern Valley Drive to Broadway
(9-10) D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1)
Approval of Minutes
(11-14)
2)
Continuation of River Reporting Gauge/South Fork Zumbro River at
37t' Street NW
(15-18)
3)
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
(19-20)
4)
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
(21-22)
5)
On -Sale Wine License for Sky Dragon Buffet, Inc.
(23-24)
6)
Approval of Accounts Payable
(25-28)
7)
Quarterly Investment Report/Third Quarter, 2000
(29-30)
8)
Approval to Advertise for Bids for Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and
Anhydrous Ferric Chloride
(31-34)
9)
Use of Mayo Facilities for Training Purposes for Fire Department
(35-38)
10)
Promotional Appointment/Motor Operator/Fire Department
(39-40)
11)
Reappointments to RCVB Board of Directors
(41-42)
12)
Grant for Fuad Mansour Sports Complex
(43-48)
13)
Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan/Manor Wood Lakes 6�
Subdivision
(49-50)
14)
Donation for Crime Prevention Costs
(51-52)
15)
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant
(53-54)
16)
Development Agreement/1008 - 3`d Avenue SE Plat
(55-56)
17)
Right of Way Settlement for 11 u, Avenue SWNrieze Property
Council Agenda
November 6, 2000
Page 2
(57-58)
18)
Owner Contract/Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve The
Gardens/Phase II (Lot 1, Block 1, The Gardens Second)
(59-60)
19)
Stormwater Management Agreements
(61-62)
20)
29th Place NW Contribution & Pedestrian Facilities Agreement/David
& Deanna Niebuhr
(63-64)
21)
Request for Design Variance for Fox Valley Drive SW from MnDOT
(65-66)
22)
Highway Maintenance Agreement Between Olmsted County and the
City of Rochester
(67-72)
23)
Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on
4th Avenue NW from Zumbro Drive to 315t Street NW
(73-78)
24)
Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on
15t Street SE from 13th Avenue SE to 15th Avenue SE
(79-86)
25)
Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on
19th Avenue NW from 19h' Street NW to Valley High Drive
(87-92)
26)
Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the
Elmcroft Subdivision Area
(93-98)
27)
Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the
Forest Hills Subdivision Area
(99-106)
28)
Feasibility Report for Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to Serve the
Forest Hills Subdivision Area
(107-110)
29)
Parking Meter Time Zone Changes
(111-112)
30)
Change Order #2 for 2000 Restoration of Second Street Ramp
(113-114)
31)
Special Parking Zone for County Coroner
(115-116)
32)
Mayo Sponsorship of Bus Service for Northwest Park & Ride Lot
(117-118)
33)
Agreement for Park & Ride Lot/Bethel Lutheran Church
(119-120)
34)
ZIPS Dial -A -Ride Bids for 2001 and 2002 Operations
(121-122)
35)\
Sewage Piping Replacement
26
dd JJ
E) HEARINGS
(123-124)
1}
Vacation Petition to Vacate 20' Wide Utility & Drainage Easement
Along South Line of Lots 3, 4 and 5 Bel Air Eighth Sub/South of 37th
Street NW and East of 11'h Avenue NW
(125-126)
2)
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant V
(127-128)
3)
Request for Charter Amendments by Ordinance/Redistricting
(129-136)
4)
Final Plat to be Known as Circle Drive Business Center Third
(137-146)
5)
Type III, Phase I, Final Plat by Rick Hexum to be Known as "1808
Properties"/East Side of 3`d Avenue SE at Approx. 18th Street SE
(147-190)
6)
Zoning District Amendment Establishing City Zoning Districts in
Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18 and 21 Marion Township that are
Included in the Orderly Annexation Area
Council Agenda
November 6, 2000
Page 3
(191-194) 7) Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit/Reconsideration of
Bituminous Processing Plant South of 40'' Street SW, West of T.H.
63 and East of 11t' Avenue SW
(195-196) 8) Abatement Order for Property at 509 - 9"' Avenue NW
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(197-198) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/6100
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A
ITEM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
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:
• This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has
already been held as a public hearing.
• This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes.
• Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting.
• Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month.
• Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this fonun.
• Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motlon by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/6/00
i
AGENDASECTION:
LETTERS AND PETITIONS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM NO.
Ll -
ITEM DESCRIPTION: BILL OSWALD REQUESTS TO BE HEARD RE: STOP LIGHT AT
55TH STREET AND WEST CIRCLE DRIVE
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
Bill Oswald, from the NW Neighborhood Association, requests to address the City Council
about the recently installed traffic signal at the intersection of 551h Street NW and West Circle
Drive.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motlon by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR 01OUNCIL ACTION
MEETING Gj
DATE: 11/6/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Letters and Petitions
City Clerk
C 021
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request for Sewer/Water Services - Sunnydale Addition
PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
The owners of Lots 28, 29, 30 and 32, Block 2, Sunnydale Addition are requesting City sewer and
water services be provided to their properties. The request asks that the services extend north on
Strathmore Lane from the existing stub connections provided in the previous East Ridge addition.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to adopt the prepared resolution referring the petition to the Public Works Department
for a feasibility study.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
W/
5420 313' Ave. S.W.
Rochester, Mn 55502
October 26, 2000
Michael J. Nigbur
City of Rochester Administration/ Public Works Department
209 41s Street S.E. Room 108
Rochester, Mn 55904-3740
Dear Mike:
On behalf of the owners of lots 28,29, 30, 31 and 32 in Block 2 of the Sunnydale
addition, we petition the city of Rochester to provide electricity, sanitary sewer and
potable water utilities to serve these lots. We request these services be extended north on
Strathmore Lane from the existing stub connections provided in the previous East Ridge
addition.
We plan to continue with the East Ridge Corporation for development of these lots and
would like to proceed spring 2001.
Also, we seek your advice on how best to proceed with the necessary formalities to
achieve this extension smoothly and cost effectively for all.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Gary L. Ha den
Personal Representative
Robert J. Thompson Estate
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
A SECTION: ORIGINATING
Letters and Petitions City Clerk
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request for Sidewalk or Bikepath — Northern Valley Drive to
Broadway
v
MEETING
DATE: 11/6/00
ITEM NO.
C-3
PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
A petition was received from residents of the Glendale Hills Neighborhood Association
requesting completion of a sidewalk or bikepath along Rocky Creek Drive on the north side,
running from Northern Valley Drive to Broadway.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the adopted resolution referring the petition from the residents of Glendale
ills Neighborhood Association to the Public Works Department for a feasibility study.
GOUNCILACTION: Moiionby: second
y
Date: October 30, 2000
To: Mack Evans, Rochester City Council Representative,
We, the undersigned residents of Glendale Hills Neighborhood Association hereby petition the
city of Rochester to expedite the completion of a sidewalk or bikepath along Rocky Creek Drive
on the North side, running from Northern Valley Drive to Broadway.
Many adults and children of the neighborhood and city use this road for recreational and
transportation purposes on foot and bicycle, but it is very dangerous because of the fact that there
is no sidewalk or pathway. It is a winding road, and cars often use speeds which are unsafe
when pedestrians or bikes are present on the side of the road.
Additionally, we hope to see the pathway funded through a means other than assessing the
property owners. City approved funding or a federal grant would be more appropriate so that the
owners of the Rocky Creek Estates mobile home court are not unfairly burdened with the
majority of the cost.
Please keep us updated on the status of this proposed project through our Glendale
Neighborhood Assocation safety council chairperson, Lora Powell (285-4421,
lrpow@bresnanlink.net, 1120 Glendale Hills Dr NE, 55906)
Signatures on subsequent pages.
Cc: Steven Kvenvold, Rochester City Administrator
Mayor Chuck Canfield
Dave Rossman, Rochester Public Works
Richard Freese, Rochester Public Works
John Wellner, Rochester Public Works
Denny Stotz, Assistant Superintendent Park & Rec
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
MEETING V)
DATE: 11/6/00 I
ITEM NO.
D-1-35
PREPARED BY:
G. NEUMANN
This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can
approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers
an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent
agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council.
The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs:
D-1. Approval of Minutes
D-2. Continuation of River Reporting Gauge/South Fork Zumbro River at 37`h Street NW
D-3. Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
-4. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
D-5. On -Sale Wine License for Sky Dragon Buffet, Inc.
D-6. Approval of Accounts Payable
D-7. Quarterly Investment Reportrrhird Quarter, 2000
D-8. Approval to Advertise for Bids for Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Anhydrous Ferric Chloride
D-9. Use of Mayo Facilities for Training Purposes for Fire Department
D-10. Promotional Appointment/Motor Operator/Fire Department
D-11. Reappointments to RCVB Board of Directors
D-12. Grant for Fuad Mansour Sports Complex
D-13. Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan/Manor Wood Lakes 6`h Subdivision
D-14. Donation for Crime Prevention Costs
D-15. Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant
D-16. Development Agreement/1008 - 34 Avenue SE Plat
D-17. Right of Way Settlement for 11`h Avenue SW/Vrieze Property
D-18. Owner Contract/Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve The Gardens/Phase H (Lot 1, Block 1, The
Gardens Second)
D-19. Stormwater Management Agreements
D-20. 29`h Place NW Contribution & Pedestrian Facilities Agreement/David & Deanna Nicbuhr
D-21. Request for Design Variance for Fox Valley Drive SW from MnDOT
D-22. Highway Maintenance Agreement Between Olmsted County and the City of Rochester
D-23. Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 4`h Avenue NW from Zumbro
Drive to 3 t" Street NW
D-24. Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1" Street SE from 13`h Avenue
SE to 15 Avenue SE
D-25. Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 19`h Avenue NW from 19`h Street
NW to Valley High Drive
D-26. Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the Elmcroft Subdivision Area
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
!a
Request for Council Action
Approval of Consent Agenda Items
November 6, 2000
Page 2
D-27. Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area
D-28, Feasibility Report for Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area
D-29. Parking Meter Time Zone Changes
D-30. Change Order #2 for 2000 Restoration of Second Street Ramp
D-31. Special Parking Zone for County Coroner
D-32. Mayo Sponsorship of Bus Service for Northwest Park & Ride Lot
D-33. Agreement for Park & Ride Lot/Bethel Lutheran Church
D-34. ZIPS Dial -A -Ride Bids for 2001 and 2002 Operations
D-35. Sewage Piping Replacement
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING I' /
DATE: 11/6/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: CONTINUATION OF RIVER REPORTING GAUGE - SOUTH
PREPARED BY:
FORK ZUMBRO RIVER AT 37TH STREET NW
G. NEUMANN
In the fall of 1992, the City was advised by the U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) Office that the funding which
they had been receiving from a department of the Corps of Engineers for the river gauge at 37th Street NW
would be discontinued in October of 1993. The new policy of the U.S.G.S. with regard to the continuation of
such river reporting gauges would be to request some cost sharing participation from the local community in
order to keep such river reporting gauges operational. The U.S.G.S. has requested that the City of Rochester or
any other local governments pay''/: of the annual maintenance costs of this gauge plus the annual electric and
telephone costs. This originally cost the City $4,400 per year for maintenance and $551 for telephone and
electric. The U.S.G.S. has requested increased funds from the City due to inflation, equalization of charges
among their gauging station network, and equipment upgrades. The total funding request for maintenance from
the City is $5,280 for October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001.
During 1992, I discussed this matter with Emergency Management, Public Works and Rochester Public Utilities
representatives. All of those departments strongly recommended the continuation of the 37d' Street river gauge
to assist in forecasting flooding levels in the community and the Rochester area. In checking with them in
September of 1999, they again recommended continuation of the gauge. While the extensive flood control
project will protect the City up to a 170-year flood event, there is always a small chance that some extreme
flooding conditions could exceed that design capacity. RPU had previously agreed to pay $2,000 per year
towards the cost of continued maintenance of this river gauge. The remainder of the City costs would be
recommended to be taken from the flood control account.
Approval for the City to agree to pay % of the annual maintenance expenses for the periods of October 1, 2000
through September 30, 2001 plus the telephone and electric expenses for the river gauge at 37tb Street is
recommended by this office.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
Approval for City cost sharing in the 37 h Street river gauge as described above.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
l rl
ov .1 - -a.. II... ...1 .. I V I
U 1.AJlGV LVI
DAVE CARR
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED COUNTY
EMERGENCY PROGRAM MANAGER
7300 BRATAAS DR Sw
ROCHESTER MN 55802
507/285-8103
FAX 507M7-2187
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 27, 1999
TO: Gary Neumann
FROM.- Dave Carr 9
SUBJECT: 37`* Street River Gage
I apologize for not responding to your memo dated September 15 1h sooner. I was out of
town last week attending the annual Association of Minnesota Emergency Managers Fall
Conference.
I have conferred with the hydrologists at the I.a Crosse and Des Moines Weather Service
Offices regarding this issue and they have advised me that the 37's Street gage is still
used to compare "Long Term" base values with the new data from the satellite river
gages. They believe we will need to refer to the data from this and other older gages for
some time.
I am therefore recommending that the City of Rochester should continue to participate in
the cost sharing arrangement with the U.S. Department of the Interior until such time the
base data from the older gages is no longer needed.
O pP4�ENT OF
o United States Department of the Interior
L
U.S. GEVLOGICf\L S[JRVEY
�gACN-,ga4 22 ooda e Dnve
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
(612) 783-3100
October 23, 2000
Mr. Gary Neumann
Assistant City Administrator
City of Rochester
201 4`" Street SE
Rochester, MN 55901
Dear Mr. Neumann:
Attached are three copies of a Joint Funding Agreement to confirm our negotiations for the continued
operation of one streamflow gaging station. Please sign all three originals; return two signed originals
and retain the other original for your records. Work cannot be continued or started until we receive the
signed agreement. Work performed with funds from this agreement will be conducted on a fixed -price
basis. The City of Rochester will billed annually. The results of all work under this agreement will be
available for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey.
As shown on the agreement, we have requested increased funds of $205 from last year for both the
City of Rochester and the USGS, bringing the total for each parry to $5,280. This increase reflects
inflation.
Thank you for your support of this important stream gaging station. As you probably know data from
this gage and others are available on the internet at: htto://mn.water.usas.gov/rt-cg'oen tbl ua. The
USGS has a new internet web page with current and historical stream, ground -water and water -quality
data available at: htto://water.usas.gov/mn/nwis/.
We look forward to working with you in the future. Please call Jim (612-783-3230) or me (612-783-
3255) if you have any questions, suggestions, or concerns. Thank you.
ncerely,
ames Fallon
Hydrologist
K:\docs_dirlfunding_dirVy20011rochester_cover.doc
Meeting
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date 11/6/00
3ENDA SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO..
'
CONSENT AGENDA
Rochester Public Utilities
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
Kathy Wilson
The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on October 31, 2000 and requests
the Common Council's favorable consideration:
- to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Delta Star Inc.
for two outdoor power transformers. The amount of the purchase order agreement
to be $897,626.00 and Delta Star, Inc. being lowest responsible evaluated bidder.
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Waukesha
Electric Systems for one generator step-up transformer. The amount of the purchase
order agreement to be $600,000.00 and Waukesha Electric Systems being lowest
responsible evaluated bidder.
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with
RESCO/PAUWELS Transformers for three-phase pad -mounted transformers. The
amount of the purchase order agreement to be $303,794.00 and RESCO/PAUWELS
Transformers being the lowest evaluated bidder.
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with
RESCO/ERMCO for single-phase pad -mounted transformers. The amount of the
purchase order agreement to be $175,306.00 and RESCO/ERMCO being the lowest
evaluated bidder.
GENERAL MANAGER:
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item # 3. a. Meeting Date: 10/31/00
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BIDS
GENERATOR STEP-UP AND OUTDOOR POWER TRANSFORMERS
PREPARED BY: Neil Stiller _-1
Sr. Electrical Engineer
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Bids were opened on October 18, 2000 for one 16lkV, generator step-up (GSU) transformer and two
outdoor power transformers. The GSU is required by the addition of the new combustion turbine at
Cascade Creek. The two outdoor power transformers are required to complete the system 161kV
conversion. All three transformers have been budgeted as part of these projects.
Three responsible bids were received. The Pennsylvania transformer bid was considered non -responsible
since they did not meet the delivery schedule. Evaluation of bids was completed as summarized below
and the bid tabulations are attached for your information.
1. Calculate the lowest life cycle cost for each item based on guaranteed losses over 20 years.
2. Identify all bids with a life cycle cost within 10% of the lowest calculated life cycle cost.
3. Bidder qualification factors and conformance to specifications are considered.
4. Of the bids identified in Step 2 and not disqualified by Step 3, the bid with the lowest initial
purchase price is the recommended bid.
Delivery of these transformers is scheduled for November 2001 and January 2002. Due to high market
demand for this type of equipment and fewer vendors, lead times are quite long. RPU is therefore
required to make a long range project schedule to accommodate the lead time issue.
The recommendation for each item is for the lowest responsible evaluated bidder.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that the. Utility Board request Common Council approval of a purchase order
agreement with Delta Star, Incorporated, in the amount of $897,626 ($448,813 each) for the purchase of
two outdoor power transformers.
2. It is recommended that the Utility Board request Common Council approval of a purchase order
agreement with Waukesha Electric Systems in the amount of $600,000 for the purchase of one generator
step-up transformer.
Generdl Manager
fib/
Date
Agenda Item # 3. b.
SUBJECT:
FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date:
CONSIDERATION OF BIDS
DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS
PREPARED BY: Steven Cook
Senior Electrical Engineer
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
10/31/00
On October 19, 2000, eleven responsible bids were received to supply distribution transformers
for the 2001 calendar year requirements.
The specification requested a base and alternate bid. The base bid was to be evaluated based on
the present value of life of transformer losses. The alternate bid was based on low initial cost
with no loss evaluation.
After reviewing the bids from all suppliers, staff has determined that while the initial purchase
price of the transformers in the alternate bid was $125,846 lower than those in the base bid, the
present value of the resulting additional losses would be $511,193.64. The potential negative
effect of purchasing the lowest initial purchase price transformers more than outweighs the
benefit of purchasing higher initial price transformers, which will result in lower total owning
costs over the transformers life. The additional money expenditure qualifies as an energy
conservation expenditure under the state -mandated demand side management law.
Award to the lowest total owning costs, evaluated bidder, within a five percent window is
recommended on all three groups. Transformers were evaluated in the following manner. The
analysis on each group was performed as follows:
1. The bidder with the lowest life cycle cost was identified.
2. Identify all bidders with a life cycle cost within 5% of the lowest life cycle cost
bidder.
3. Of the bidders identified in step 2, recommend award to the bidder with the lowest
initial purchase price.
The groups bid were:
Single-phase overhead
Single-phase pad -mounted
Three-phase pad -mounted
By using a 5% window, RPU saves $17,620 in the initial purchase price of distribution transformers
looking at only total ownership cost.
�j I % .. ter_ '� ;;�•
�`Gentri'al Manager Date
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 1q /
DATE: 11 /6/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY CLERK
ITEM NO.
6-4
ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DONNA JSCHOTT
The following licenses, 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.
GAMBLING — TEMPORARY RAFFLE
Rochester Area Disabled Athletics & Recreation, Inc.
539 N Bdwy Suite 4117
Rochester, Mn. 55906
RAFFLE 1/19/ - 21/01 AT
Mayo Civic Center
30 Civic Center Dr SE
Rochester Mn 55904
Rochester Area disabled Athletics & Recreation, Inc.
539 N Bdwy Suite #117
Rochester, Mn. 55906
Raffle 2/24/01 to 5/18/01 AT
R.A.D.A.R. Location
GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT RELOCATION
AFL-CIO Labor club
11-4"StSE
Rochester, Mn. 55904
Dover Fire Relief Association
PO Box 65
Dover Mn 55929
PREMISE AT:
Rookies Sports Grill & Bar
1517 16TH St SW
Rochester Mn 55902
HAVC
Cronstroms Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
6437 Goodrich Ave
St. Louis Park, Mn. 55426
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
tnA LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
PAGE
NOVEMBER 6, 2000
Fisher-Bjork Sheetmetal Company, Inc.
1441 Igelhart Ave
St Paul Mn 55104
MASTER INSTALLER
Delton Standberg
6380 St. John's Dr
Eden Prairies, Mn. 55342
Willard Krinkie
3087 Frandy Hook Dr
Roseville Mn 55113
Michael T. Olsen
28010 Sejastapol Rd
Red Wing Mn 55066
MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
Downtown Business Association
Carriage Rides & Santa's Rescue 11/24/00
Peace Plaza to Central Park
Rochester Mn 55901
Citizens Against the Rochester Bypass
Rural Awareness Parade 11/11/00 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM
P Ave SE to Civic Center Dr SE
Minnesota Bible College
920 Mayowood Rd SW
Rochester Mn 55902
Live Nativity Display (Drive By) 12/1/00 to 12/3/00
COUNCIL ACTION ROUESTED
A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/6/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
EM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
D - 4
]DONNA
ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
REPARED BY:
JSCHOTT
The following ADDENDUM licenses, 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.
FIREWORKS
Lori Line Concert
222 Minnetonka Ave S
Wayzata Mn 55391
Concert & Fireworks 11 /25/00 3:00 PM and 8:00 PM
May6 Civic Center
30 Civic Center Dr SE
Rochester Mn 55904
GAMBLING — TEMPORARY
Pheasants Forever — Tri County Chapter
PO Box 6225
Rochester Mn 55903
Raffle 3/16/01 AT
Radisson Plaza Hotel
150 S Bdwy
Rochester Mn 55904
SOUND AMPLIFICATION
Citizens to Stop the Coal Train Rally
Peace Plaza
Monday, November 13, 2000
6:00 PM to 7:00 PM
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the above ADDENDUM licenses and permits.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 0 /
DATE: 11 /6/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
D) _ 60
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ON SALE WINE LICENSE FOR SKY DRAGON BUFFET, INC.
PREPARED BY:
DONNAJSCHOTT
Application for a wine license has been received from Ren Xin Qiu DBA Sky Dragon Buffet located at
34 — 17'' Avenue NW. He currently holds an On -Sale 3.2% Beer License at this location.
Issuance of the license is pending all departmental approvals, insurance certificates and all required fees.
A confidential investigative report has been completed and satisfied.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED
A motion to approve the application for a wine license for Sky dragon Buffet, Inc.
%,uUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING R%
DATE: 11 /6100
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance Department
ITEM NO.
Z>_(p
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Approval of Accounts Payable
PREPARED BY:
Dale Martinson
Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable
(submitted separately) in the amount of $6,580,250.44.
Less: Any exceptions
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
as''
DATE: 11 /6/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda/Organizational Business
Finance
D`7
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Quarterly Investment Report -Third Quarter, 2000
B. Atkinson
As prescribed by the City's revised investment policy, adopted March 18, 1996, the information
below and appendices summarize the City's portfolio.
1. Portfolio Information
° Summary Schedule of Investments -by investment type, and percentage of the total
portfolio. See Appendix A.
° Unrealized gains or losses:
City of Rochester portfolio contains no securities over one year's duration, that aren't
intended to be held until maturity.
2. Marking to Market
° Listing provided by the City's custodial agent showing market value of individual
investments as of September 30, 2000. See Appendix B.
3. Performance Standards
° City of Rochester's portfolio average yield to maturity as of September 30, 2000--
6.01 %.
° Benchmark standards:
Standard and Poors Local Government Investment Pool Index-30 day yield,
Week ended September 17, 2000-- 6.34%.
91 day Treasury Bill yield at September 29 — 6.01 %.
Public Investor 10-bill index for October 1 - 5.0%.
Council Action Requested: Receive and file quarterly investment report.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
n
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS
SEPTEMBER 2000
Interest
Investments
Rate
Maturity
Book Value Percent
Govt Paper:
FACO Strip
6.1
varies
1,015,800.00
FFCB
5.52-6.978
varies
2,910,067.25
FHLB
5.05-8.0
varies
26,970,435.00
FHLMC
5.34-8.0
varies
13,938,077.50
FNMA
4.70-7.30
varies
52,151,859.34
Tennessee Valley Authority
5.625-6.745
2000
1,855,045.00
TOTAL GOVT PAPER
98,841,284.09 87.10%
CP's
6.58-6.87
varies
12,790,243.48
O/N
varies
on demand
1,892,622.75 1.70%
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
113,524,150.32
RPU
0.00
invest pool
113,524,150.32
113, 524,150.32
Finance Department
Dee Olson ,..— 10/5= L- X /4 /GB / 7-14
•
•
O P P
P
o ri
w
z
ow
or
Ou
P
m
U
CU
u
6Q.
Y
Q
m
F-
W O
P
C m
n^
P
W �
W
u
=mW
us
Pc
Pm
LJ
m—
m
Yp
F-u
f-a
ul
—U
y�
UQ
W2
Z
a
0010
X
N lyif
m0
^
J J
�O
WZ
l
N
Z Q
7Uce
—
QW
O
g
(n
O
m n
u
O
P r
n
w
O
m N 0
X
W
a
rp
Lon
>
O N
_
u
P cop
QW
C�
P
O
mrn
O
W
O
M N
S
S"z
0000
J
NlO
N
Q
>
O N
H
nm
m
y
^
U
^
P
Ill
H
Z y
W H
J Z
6 W
y
Vld>>
YO
Had-
uz
zaW�
z
w d
Inww
JJSW
wf7
aay
Hale
cwwu
�wm
W W
W
S J
y O J
x xora
nwa
Q ¢UOO
OWO
u u F
m F—
a7
W1,
IM
0
sisted. Bonds Online reports thatin
August, two-year Treasuries were
yielding 6.21 percent whereas two-
year AA -rated corporates were at
7.03 percent, resulting in a difference
of 82 basis points. Similarly, Merrill
Lynch bond indexes show 1- to 10-
year high -quality corporate bonds
(AAA or AA rated) yield exactly 100
basis points more. than 1- to 10-year
Treasuries, based on $eptember 26
data in the Wald Stmet journal. ([lease
refer to the chart below)
What accounts for the sector spread?
The same forces that brought about
the yield curve inversion earlier this
year -the reduction in supply of
Treasuries --also may have explained
the sector spreads. In addition, cred-
it deterioration may be "creeping"
into the corporate bond market
More corporate bonds have been
downgraded than upgraded in recent
months, so arguably this has caused
some repricing in the corporate bond
market
Should short-term corporates be part
of a state or local goverrunent's port-
folio? Policymakers may want to
debate this question as the federal
government reduces the supply of
Treasury bonds and the Treasury
market becomes less liquid. At this
point m time, however, most local
governments simply lack the authori-
ty m invest in corporate bonds. The
next issue of Pubic lnnestorwill re-
lease the results of a survey showing
which states allow local governments
to invest in corporate bonds. X
...............................................................................................................................
Spreads : continued frompage 1 Performance Benchmarks
Vr'%r =Public n4filitor.Performance Indexes
The Public Investor 10-bill index
QuarterlylMonthly Annualized Returns
Return Since -
Index Value Annualized Jan. 1 1099 .Jan. 1, 1998
Jan. 1, 1999 232.0175 3.9%(Q) 5.2% 5.3%
Jan. 1, 2000 242.8785 - 4.8%(Q) 4.7% 4.9%
Sept. 1; 2000 252.1627r 4.2%(M)r 4.7%r 5.1%r
Oct. 1, 2000 253.4699 _ fi.4% 5.2% 5.2%
The Public Investor 10-hill index consists of 10 hypothetical Treasury bill investments, with an average
maturity of approximately Be days. Every other Thursday, a T-bill matures and proceeds are reinvested
alternately in three-month and six-month T-bills. This rolling index provides a benchmark for evaluating
cash management portfolios with biweekly payment and payroll requirements. The original value of the
index was 97.6765 on July 1, 1984.
The money market fund index
Annualized Returns Since
Average Return Jan 1., 1999 Jan 1., 1998
Jan. 1, 1999 43% 5.04% 5.04%
Jan. 1, 2000 5.1 % 4.93% 4.99%
Sept. 1, 2000 6.1% 5,04% 5.03%
Oct. 1, 2000 6.2% .5.06% 5.04%
The money market fund index is the simple average of OC's Money Fund Report AmragesTM seven-day
money market fund indexes, as reported for the two weeks closest to the and of each month. The annual.
Led return is calculated using these rates for a four -week period centering on the first of each month.
The results should simulate returns from passive Investment in an average money market fund.
1S&P Rated LGIP.Index (September.17, 2000)'
7yield 30-dBy yield Maturity .(Da a
6.34% fi.34 % 29
This index is comprised of local government Investment pools that are rated AAAm or AAm by Standard 5
Pools and represent pools that store to maintain a stable net asset fund.
Key Rates: Cash Markets'
Rate 929/00 Year Arm
Fed funds 6.75 525 _
CDs: Three months 6.70 5.13
CDs: Six months 6.68 5.33
BAs: One month 6m 5.33
T-bills: 91-day yield 6.07 4.72
T-bill; 52 week yield 5.88 - 5.00
Bond Buyer 20-bond
municipal index 5.63 5.71 -
Tax-exempt notes 4.20 3.05
Sector Spread
n R Ate,
Corporates
1.10 Year
Treasuri
1-10 Year.
S
GFOA to Conduct
Treasury Training
p .-4
LL
will beholdingtwo
GFOA
essions of interest to jun-
or and mid -career cash
■Yield
managers. The first, scheduled for
December 11-12, will be on Inrierdng
4
Pubic Fundr. On December 13-14, a
r `
complementary seminar will be held
on Pubk'c Crib Management. Both
seminars are to be held in San
Antonio, Texas. See GFOA's Web
site (ivww.gfoo org) for regisfration
Iwates rated AA or AAA
information. 88
2
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/6/00
Consent Agenda
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Finance Department
ALUMINUM SULFATE AND ANHYDROUS FERRIC CHLORIDE
Jennifer King
The Water Reclamation Plant requests approval to advertise for one year's supply of Anhydrous Ferric
Chloride and Liquid Aluminum Sulfate to be furnished to the City as indicated in the specifications
provided by the Water Reclamation Plant. Funding for these items has been budgeted in the 4330 Water
Reclamation Plant Budget.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids for Anhydrous Ferric Chloride and
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CONSENT AGENDA
Fire
MEETING ✓ 1 Z
DATE: 11/06/00
D'4q
USE OF MAYO FACILITIES FOR TRAINING PURPOSES FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT j DanSlavin
Mayo Clinic has offered the use of their facilities, i.e. buildings and properties, to Rochester firefighters for the
purpose of training for emergency operations. This is a five year agreement between Mayo and RFD and will
supercede previous action taken by the Council for October and November training.
A release of liability with Mayo Foundation is requested by them.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to adopt the prepared resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the required release
documents from the Mayo Foundation for use of Mayo structures in fire fighting training.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion
Second
to:
i.1W- W ,R
RELEASE AGREEMENT
THIS RELEASE AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 22nd day of September, 2000
by and between the CITY OF ROCHESTER, a municipal corporation ("City") and MAYO
CLINIC ROCHESTER, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("Mayo").
In consideration of the mutual agreements set forth in this Agreement and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Use of Property for Training: From time to time it is beneficial for both the
City and Mayo to permit City personnel involved in public safety, including police and fire
personnel, to schedule training exercises using specific portions of Mayo property suitable for
such exercises. In order to facilitate the efficient scheduling of such exercises, this Agreement
establishes a process through which the City can obtain from Mayo Safety approval for specific
exercises, on specific Mayo properties, at specific times. Whenever the City wishes to schedule
an exercise, it will provide a brief, written summary identifying the specific portions of Mayo
property to be used, the overall purpose and description of the proposed use, and the specific
dates and times that the use will take place. Upon the City receiving written approval of each
separate proposal from the City from a representative of Mayo Safety, Mayo shall have agreed
that the City may use the specific property for the specific use at the specific time stated in the
City's proposal. This is not a blanket approval for general or reoccurring use of Mayo Property
by the City and each specific use must be approved in writing by a representative of Mayo
Safety. The representative of Mayo Safety shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary
internal Mayo approvals.
2. No Representations or Warranties: Representatives of the City will make their
own independent investigation and determination regarding the suitability of the Mayo property
for use by City's employees under this Agreement. Mayo makes no representation or warranty
whatsoever to the City regarding the Mayo Property and the City agrees that it will use the Mayo
Property on an "as is, where is" basis.
3. No Compensation: Mayo is making the Mayo Property available to the City as a
public service and the City is not obligated to compensate Mayo under this Agreement.
4. Release: The City does hereby forever release, acquit, discharge, and covenant to
hold harmless Mayo, each of its affiliated entities and their respective officers, agents and
employees, from any and all actions, causes of action, claims, demands, damages, costs, loss of
services, known and unknown personal injuries and property damages, and expenses and
compensation, suffered or incurred by any person on account of, resulting from, or in any way
arising out of, use of the Mayo Property by the City pursuant to this Agreement.
5. Term: This Agreement is effective as of September 22, 2000 and shall terminate
on December 31, 2005.
33
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Release to be executed as
of the 22nd day of September, 2000.
CITY:
CITY OF ROCHESTER, a municipal
corporation
By:
Charles J. Canfield, Mayor
Attest:
Judy K. Scherr, City Clerk
MAYO:
MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER, a
L:DepuftwnNOviatt\Mim Agieements\Release Agreement (City and Mayo) 9-22-00
3� p� RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
Special MeetAff 1�1 a%;IlJt�tW-2$1,IW(ItSOTA
Agenda
Item
�]I
F-1
President Pro-tem Jean McConnell called the meeting to order with the following
members present: Councilmembers Evans, Hanson, Marcoux, Senjem and
Stobaugh. Absent: President Hunziker.
Councilmembers Hanson moved, Evans seconded to adopt Resolution No. 661-00
approving a Release Agreement with the Mayo Foundation for the Fire
Department's use of the property located between the Harwick Building and the
Medical Sciences Building at 321 Third Ave. SW. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion
carried.
Having no further business, Councilmembers Hanson moved, Evans seconded to
adjourn the meeting. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried.
da&1, V�(-
Deputy City Clerk
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING .,.J -�;o f
DATE: 11/6/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Organizational / Consent
Human Resources
D - t o
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Promotional Appointment - Motor Operator - Fire Department
PREPARED BY:
L Gilsna L
The promotion of Charles Roberson, Motor Operator, to the position of Captain effective
August 22, 2000 created a vacancy for the position of Motor Operator.
The Fire Civil Service Commission has submitted the two certified candidates for the position
of Motor Operator from the established eligibility roster and recommends the appointment of
one of the two to the position of Motor Operator.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Promotional appointment of Firefighter Jason M. Whitney to the position of Motor Operator in
the Rochester Fire Department effective November 6, 2000.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by; to:
blftd
ALI-AMERICA CITY
V'4f
October31, 2000
ROCHESTER
.�ri2r�e�a�z
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
GREG WALTERS NORB RYAN HILLA CLINE
Honorable Council Members
City Council
City Hall
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Council Members:
The promotion of Motor Operator Charles Roberson to the position of Captain effective
August 22, 2000 created a vacancy for the position of Motor Operator.
We respectfully request that you make one (1) appointment to the position of Motor
Operator from the following list of qualified candidates:
1. Jason M. Whitney
2. Ronald A. Hansen
Fire Chief David Kapler desires to have this appointment effective November 6, 2000.
Respectfully Submitted,
IVP& 6A411k
Norb Ryan
Secretary
Fire Civil Service Commission
An Equa[Opportunity Employer
ROCHESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 3, 2000
TO: Eire Civil Service Commission
FROM: Chief Kapler XL
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PROMOTE CAPTAIN
Due to the recent retirement of Captain Ken Middendorf, there
exists a vacancy in the position of Captain. I request that we
promote the next candidate on the Captain Eligibility Roster,
Charles Roberson, to fill this vacancy.
This promotion will create a vacancy in the position of Motor
Operator. As soon as an eligibility list is established, we
would like an appointment made to that position as well. Thank
you.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
Organizational Business Mayor's OFfice
..EM DESCRIPTION:
ReAppointments to RCVB Board of Directors
MEETING =., I /
DATE: 111,1106
ITEM NO.
D'1/
PREPARED BY:
ayor Canfield
I hereby submit for your approval the following reappointments
to the Rochester Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors
Michael Smith
General Manager
Radisson Hotel
Ed Hruska
General Public Representative
Both are eligible to serve another two-year term expiring
December 31, 2002.
.'OUNCIL ACTION: Moms b S.owd by. to:
i
MINNESOT
Rochester Convention and Visitors Bureau
October 25, 2000
Mayor Chuck Canfield
Rochester City Hall
201 4" St SE, Rm #281
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Mayor Canfield:
As the Rochester Convention and Visitors Bureau begins preparing for a new fiscal and
calendar year we review our Board of Directors roster for expiring terms. The Mayor
currently has two appointments to the RCVB Board of Directors that will expire on
December 31, 2000.
The first expiring appointment represents the lodging industry and is currently filled by
Michael Smith, General Manager of the Radisson Plaza Hotel. The second expiring
appointment represents the general public and is currently filled by Ed Hruska. The new
or re -appointed representatives will serve a two-year term that will expire December 31,
2002.
Please advise me of these appointments by November 13, 2000. The complete slate of
candidates will be presented to the full RCVB Board of Directors at their November 21 st
meeting. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call at 288-4331,
ext. 105.
Sincerely,
A14��
Brenda L. Riggott
Executive Director
bldbo"nomltrAm
150 South Broadway, Suite A a Rochester, MN 55904-6500
d (507)288-4331 a 1-800-634-8277 a FAX: (507) 288-9144 DEMB
E-Mail: infoarochestercvb.org a Website: www.rochestercvb.org
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
! A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA PARK AND RECREATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
GRANT FOR FUAD MANSOUR SPORTS COMPLEX
MEETING
DATE:11/6/00
ITEM NO.
b-ra.
PREPARED BY:
ROY SUTHERLAND
The Park and Recreation Department has applied for and received a $100,000 grant from
the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission for the development of the Fuad Mansour
Sports Complex. This development, which includes 7 soccer fields, 6 football fields, and
6 baseball fields, will cost $1,390,200. The $100,000 will help cover the cost of this project.
The 4 to 1 match that is required by this grant has already been met with the contributions
from youth soccer, youth baseball, youth football, RCTC, and the City of Rochester.
To complete the process, the City of Rochester needs to sign the agreement and pass a
resolution in support of the project. Attached are four copies of the agreement and the
resolution.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AND PASS THE R ESOLUTION.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mono
Second by: to:
C I.I..Al...
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING Y3
DATE: 11 /06/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
D.18
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan —Manor Wood Lakes 6`h
PREPARED 13
Subdivision
John Harford, Senior
Pr
November 1, 2000
Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan:
In 1998 a wetland area was identified by the applicant's consultant. This Type 1 remnant wetland was located along
71h St., NW east of Cascade Creek in the area now proposed for Manor Wood Lakes 6`h subdivision. The applicant
filled 8,531 square feet of wetland area in 1998 without receiving approval for the filling. The applicant in turn
applied for an exemption which the Technical Evaluation Panel and city did not approve. Due to the filling without
approval the Olmsted Soil and Water Conservation District determined that the area should not be restored but
replaced. The Olmsted SWCD determined that the replacement ratio would be 2: 1. The replacement area, therefore,
is 17,062 square feet.
The applicant has subsequently purchased 0.4 acres of Type 1 and 2 wetland credits from an existing approved
wetland bank located within the South Zumbro River watershed in Dodge County.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
ine staff recommends approval of this wetland replacement plan with a condition that the applicant complete the
wetland credit withdrawal process with the city, credit owner, and BWSR.
City Council Action:
1. The council should pass a resolution approving the replacement plan.
Attachments:
1. Letters from the Ohnsted SWCD
2. Wetland Credit Purchase Agreement.
3. McGhie and Betts letters to the Olmsted SWCD
4. Copy of Withdrawal form.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 6, 2000 in the Council
-.ambers at the Government Center.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
N
OLMSTED SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1485 Industrial Drive NW
Room 102
Rochester, Minnesota 55901
(507) 280-2850
MINNESOTA
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
October 17, 2000
Mr. John Harford
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Manorwood Lakes Wetland
Dear Mr. Harford,
As we had discussed on Friday, October 13, 2000 the Olmsted Soil and Water
Conservation District's findings on the Manorwood Lakes cease and desist order. The
decision to require of site replacement was made in concurrence with the TER
We have received a copy of the purchase agreement for wetland bank credits. It is my
understanding that the LGU would submit to the SWCD documentation that the bank
credits were available and the purchase agreement was on file with the appropriate
agencies.
Upon receipt of this information the S WCD will request that the cease and desist order be
rescinded. If you have any questions or additional comments please call me at 280-2850.
Thank you.
Floyd Whitaker
District Coordinator
-:2-12-200 12:28PM
P. 2
Oct 12 00 07:11a
FROM
Dletz Cnnstructian 507 02-7980
THIS AGREEMENT is made on June 7th, 2000, between Vivian Johnson-
Zumbro Wetland Bank ("Seller") and Western Wall Inc. ("Buyer°),
RECITALS:
A. Seller Is the owner of red property located in the Zumbro Water Shed
in, Dodge County, Minnesota legally described as follows:
Southeast Quarter (S,E. 1 /4). of Section 30, Township 106 North,
Range 17 West (the "Property')
0. Seller has restored, on the Property, wetlands and created
wetland credits for state and federal wetland credit banking purposes.
C, The Buyer desires to purchase wetland credits for use ps
replacement wetlands understate and federal wetland replacement
requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable oorlsiderotion the parties agree
os follows:
1, STATE AND FEDERAL APPROVAL. Seller has obtained state and
federal approvol of the wetlands restored on the Property as wetland
credits for deposit In state and tederal wetland banks, Seller has
executed all necessary documentations for the approval of the Property
for wetlands permitted to be banked in accord with state and federal
rules.
2. MAINTENANCE OF WETLANDS. Seller Is maintaining the Property as
wetlands in accord -with state and federal requirements,
3.LPURCHASE OF CREDITS, The Buyer WIII purchase point four (4) acres
of type 1 or 2 wetland credits from Seller for the purchase price of Three
thousand dollars ($3,000.00).-One thousand fIva hundred doliats ($1,500) or
one half of the amount payable upon execution of this purchase
agreement. The balance payable upon approval of buyers project by the
local government unit (LGU).
4. TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, Salter shalt retain fee title to the Property
and wilt transfer to the Buyer the mInlfYlUM interest In the Property
permisslNe to transfer wetland credits attached to the Property.
� • i �-gee i 1: etsrM
J
6"t 12 00 07:12a
rKUM
D•tz Construction 507;dw
,2-7980
p•3 /
5, WARRANTY OF THE Seiler warrants that Sell - h
er is t e fee owner of the
property and that there are no Ilene or encumbrances against the Wetland
credits being purchased by Buyer herein and will have the full right and use
Of the wetland acreage credits subject to buyers necessary notices to
local or state authorities relative to the replacement of impacted wetland
by these wetland bank credits.
6. MINNESOTA LAW TO GOVERN. This Agreement shall be governed by
Minnesota raw,
7. NEGATION OF PARTNERSHIP, The parties to this agreement shall not
be deemed to be partners as a result of any provision of this agreement,
8. NOTICES, All notices required by this Agreement must be In writing
and delivered personally or sent by United States First Class Mail, and if
malted will be considered effective as of the date of malting,
The parties addresses, to which any and all notices shall be sent, are as
follows: ,
Seller:
Buyer:
10 First Ave. S, E
Hayfield, Minnesota 55940
Western Wall Inc,
604 11th Ave. N.W.
Rochester, MN 65901
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement
the day and year first above written.
Vivian J hnsonh'���'i�,q�
Zumbro Wetland Bank
Wier Buyer
ALC-25-1998 14:17
&ITZ CONSTRUCTION 0 P,e2
OLMSTED SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
14851ndu that Onve NW
gloom 102
Aod+Mor, Minnecata 55201
(507) 280-2850
MINNESOTA
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
August 20, 1998
Western Watts
Bob Dewitz
604 11 th Ave NW
Rochester, MN 55901
RE: Manor Lakes Wetland Restoration Plan
On July 31, 1998 a Cease and Desist Order was issued by DNR enforcement for an
alleged wetland violation on property you are associated with. Our site investigations
have reveled that indeed a violation of the Wetlan&Conservation Act (WCA) has occurred
through sediment deposition from upgradient grading activities. It is the responsibility of
the Olmsted Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) to develop a restoration plan
in accordance with WCA to achieve compliance on your site. We have observed
n>casured the site and present the fallowing findings and plan components which will meet
your restorgtyn requirements -
As your consultant has delineated and in agreement with the Technical Evaluation Panel
(TEP), the total wetland impact is 8,531 square feet. The mitigation shall occur off -site,
within the watershed, and at a ratio of 2.1 totaling 17,062 square feet of credit. Please
contact me by September 11, 1998 with a replacement plan and/or proof of credit
purchase.
If you have any questions please contact me at the number above.
sincercLy,
Steven L. Connelly
District Manager
c: John Harford, Olmsted Planning and Zoning
Dean Olson, DNR Enforcement
Mary Kells, BWSR
David Kramer, Rochester Public Works
—M^, 1441T M401 f Vcm
+ TOTPL P.02
1
:�
/����:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING qq
DATE: 11/6/00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. -M
Consent Agenda Police D_' 4
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Donation for Crime Prevention Costs
Roger Peterson
Andre and Ann LaPeyre have donated $200 to the Rochester Police Department Crime Prevention Unit. These
funds will be used to offset printing expenses incurred for crime prevention flyers and bulletins.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval to accept a $200 from Andre and Ann LaPeyre for Crime Prevention Unit printing expenses.
Appropriate to 4110-11130.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mouon by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5
DATE: 11/6/00
CONSENT I Police I p -1 5
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant I PREPARED BY
Roger Peterson
The Minnesota Department of Economic Security (NOES) has made funds available to the City of Rochester
Police Department through a federal Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) program. The
amount allocated to the City is $37,093 which is based 2/3 on law enforcement, corrections, and court -related
activities. The remaining 1/3 is based on the City of Rochester's Part I crime statistics. The JAIBG program is
intended to help reform the juvenile justice system and to provide greater accountability for juveniles involved in
the juvenile or criminal justice system.
In reviewing the grant qualifications, it appears that the Police Department does not meet the qualifications as a
stand-alone agency. Our Department does qualify as a multi jurisdictional entity by allocating and organizing
into a single contract with Ohnsted County.
County Attorney Raymond Schmitz has indicated that Olmsted County would be willing to pick up the City's
2000-2001 grant hard cash match of $4,121. The County would also act as administrator of the grant,
completing the grant application and any reporting or follow-up documentation
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval to accept $37,093 in JAIBG funds, and to enter into a multi jurisdictional agreement with Olmsted
County providing the City of Rochester's match of $4,121 and providing administrative and financial reporting.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by. to:
I
6°2-
Sarah Clayton
Rochester Police Department
Government Center
RAYMOND F SCHMITZ
COUNTY ATTORNEY
151 4TH STREET SE
ROCHESTER, MN 55904-3710
Email: county.attorney@co.olmsted.mn.us
507/285-8138 FAX 507/281-6054
WITNESS LINE / CHILD SUPPORT
287-2060 285-8381
Re: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant 2001
CRIMINAL DIVISION
JAMES S. MARTINSON
SENIOR ASSISTANT
JAMES E. HAASE
KAARIN S. LONG
ERIC J. OLSON
JAMES P. SPENCER
ERIC M, WOODFORD
Thank you for the opportunity to summarize the use of JAIBG funds in 2000 and the plans for 2001
CIVIL DIVISIOI
ROBERT W. M I
SENIORASSISTANT
KAREN ARTHURS
GEOFFREY A. HJERLEIO
THOMAS P. KELLY
LIZ LaROOL E
KATHY M. WALLACE
We have continued the staff that was added in 1999, specifically one attorney and one support person in the
juvenile division of my office, these individuals have focused on the prosecution of juvenile cases and
support of the juvenile diversion program These staff have allowed us to continue to move serious cases
through the system as rapidly as possible. We have also been able to work with school liaison and
neighborhood officers on resolving community problems.
In 2001 we intend to use the available funds to continue this program, specifically the funds available are:
1. Grant funds available to The City. $37,093.
Match $ 4,121.
2. Grant Funds available to the County $31,312.
Match $ 3,479.
The City has agreed to make its grant funds available for this program, and the county has agreed to use its
grant funds for the program and to be responsible for the total match and for administrating the grants and
acting as fiscal agent.
Respectfull
i
nd F. ctu 'Iz
sted County At me
Cc: Richard Devlin
Stevan Kvenvold
Olmsted County Board
Rochester City Council
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
�53
11/06/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works I j')—/(v
PARED BY:
M. Nigbur�
The Owners of the 314 Avenue SE property, located along 3`a Avenue SW, and City Staff have had
discussions relating to impacts of the project on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the
discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been
created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following:
• Execution of a Pedestrian Facility Agreement for future sidewalk.
• Dedication of right of way.
• Payment of development/connection related charges including SAC, WAC, and
Sewer/Watermain connection.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developer has executed the
agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the Hexum 1808 3'
Avenue SE Property.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
j
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /6/00
er_GNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda Public Works T.)—J'7
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Right of Way settlement for 11'" Avenue SW — R� M NigbuY• P—
Vrieze Property. rvyr
The City and one of the owners of property abutting the 11' Avenue SW Project have reached a
settlement on the acquisition of a part of the needed right of way of 11' Avenue SW. The
settlement amount is $8,500. The difference from the offer amount to the settlement amount
included an increase in the payment for landscaping to assist the Owner in screening the
property. The property prior to construction had natural woodland and undergrowth to protect
the property. With this settlement we are also able to avoid the costs associated with the
condemnation of the property.
The Owners have executed the agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Settlement Agreement with Mr. & Mrs.
Vrieze in the amount of $8,500.00.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 57 /
DATE: 11 /6/00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works I D-(g
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve The PREPARED BY:
Gardens - Phase II [Lot 1, Block 1, The Gardens Second](J9735) �.JF M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
South Broadway Partners, LLC (Owner) & Elcor Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City /
Owner Contract J9735 consisting of "Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve The Gardens - Phase
(Lot 1, Block 1, The Gardens Second)".
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9735
"Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve The Gardens - Phase II (Lot 1, Block 1, The Gardens Second)"
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
5q i
MEETING
DATE: 11 /6/00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
ITEM NO.
D-rq
'ARED BY: Dh,
M. Baker1"
The Department of Public Works has received requests on three (3) different properties, to
voluntarily participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. This department
has reviewed the information for these properties and has determined that there is support for
participation. Owners of the following properties have requested voluntary participation in the
City's Plan, with the applicable participation fee as follows:
• Pharmaceutical Specialties, Inc. (SDP#00-90)
(Lot 7, Block 3, Valley High Replat) $ 380.00
• American Red Cross SE Minnesota Chapter (SDP#00-30 Revised)
(Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Meadow Park 6th) $ 1,456.67
• Mayo Employees Credit Union (SDP#00-74)
(Lot 1, Block 1, Shorewood Retail Replat) $ 14,665.74
The Owners of these properties have already provided payment for their respective charges.
These funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for the properties to participate
in the City's Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation by the above noted properties, in the
City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM DESCRIPTION: 29" Place NW Contribution,
David & Deanna Niebuhr
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
Agreement —
MEETING 6( /11
DATE: 1116/00
ITEM NO.
D-ao
PREPARED A -
Staff
David R. Niebuhr & Deanna R. Niebuhr are the Owners of part of Lot 19, Allendale Subdivision. A
portion of the property is encumbered by the future alignment of the 291" Place NW right-of-way, as
recorded on the Amended Official Map No. 3 for Allendale Subdivision. The Owners intend to
develop the property at this time, and have requested that a Contribution and Pedestrian Facilities
Agreement be approved to address the Owner's obligations with regard to the future street
construction, and providing sidewalk along the frontages of the Property.
(SEE ATTACHED PROPERTY SITE MAP)
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Contribution Agreement and
Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with David & Deanna Niebuhr for part of Lot 19, Allendale Subdivision.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
i
o Ln
w *-o
to N to —.-.
-j II II II II II
U COF-J�
4USu/
3
O
a
c.
w
U
6
a
a
F
rn
N
179 lkltl
e.3Ab�
v .
�c
0
N
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11 /6/00
"^SNDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
Fo>-a (
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request for Design Variance for Fox Valley Drive S.W. from
PREPARED BY:
MnDOT (J9651)
D. Nelson
Project Number: M023 J-9651
S.A.P. 159-145-01
"Construct Fox Valley Drive SW from Foxcroft 2nd Addition to Baihly Heights 6th Subdivision".
Fox Valley Drive SW is currently under construction. Public Works, in working with the developers and
the neighborhoods in this area have considered various traffic calming measures to incorporate into
this project. The use of Round -A -Bouts are desirable features to act as traffic calming devices.
A Round -A -Bout is proposed with a design speeds of 20 MPH. This is below the minimum State Aid
standard of 30 MPH and will require a variance for a reduction in design speed through the Round -A -
Bout in order to use Municipal State Aid funding for the project.
This request will require a hearing before the Minnesota Department of Transportation Variance
Committee since this type of design is relatively new to the State Aid System.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution directing the Director of Public Works to request such a variance for State Aid
Project 159-145-01, Fox Valley Drive S.W. from Foxcroft to Baihley Heights subdivisions, from the
Commissioner of Transportation and adopt a resolution holding the State harmless for claims resulting
from granting the variance.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
1116/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
01-
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Highway Maintenance Agreement between Olmsted County and
PREPARED BY4forthe
the City of Rochester
D. Nelson
The County of Olmsted has transmitted to the City the Annual Highway Maintenance Agreemen
period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001.
The County will pay to the City $3,469.00 per mile for the maintenance of 11.31 miles of County
highways located within the City of Rochester.
The terms and conditions of the proposed Highway Maintenance Agreement are identical to the
previous 12-month agreement.
The City Public Works Department recommends approval of the new Agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the attached Highway Maintenance Agreement for the
period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 with the County of Olmsted for the maintenance of 11.31 miles of
County highways within the City of Rochester.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Yam?
DATE: 11 /6/00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works p—a 3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J9734) PREPARED BY: V
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW from Zumbro Dr to 31st St NW .Klm
This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6304-4-00 (J9734)
Project Name
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW from Zumbro Dr to 31st St NW
Protect Background
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in 1972.
At the request of the property owners an informational meeting was held on October 26, 2000. Their support for a
rehabilitation project resulted in this request for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report.
Estimated Protect Costs
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$119,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$5,700.00
Stern Sewer Repairs/Upgraclas
$5,000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain SarvlCe Replacement
Sanity Sewer
$0.00
Sub Totel
$129,700.00
lEnolnearing, interest Contingencies 30%
$38910.00
TOTAL
$168,610.00
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Fronte a
$28,605.68
$ ecial Assessments - Sidewalk
$6,136.88
Special Assessments - Servlce Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
SanitaN Sewer Jtl1ltV Funds
$0.00
CI Street Share
133 867.45
TOTAL
$168.610.00
Recommendation
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based on the current condition
of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution receiving the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt a resolution ordering a Project Hearing to be held for December 11, 2000.
3. Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll.
4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for December 11, 2000.
Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, petition
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
PROJECT NO. 6304-4-00 J9734
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY
4TH AVE NW FROM ZUMBRO DR TO 31ST ST NW
November 2, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Avc NW from Zumbro Dr to 31 st St N\V', was referred to
the Public Works Department on Septemberr' 000 for preparation of the Engineers
Feasibility Report.
Feasibility Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based
on the current condition of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in 1972.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's
Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective,
cost-effective program for the preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's
infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at this time for this street, which has a
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 13, is rehabilitation.
Work typically will include the following
1. Removal of existing edges of the roadway and gravel base, boulevard sod
2. Construction of concrete curb and gutter, and driveway aprons
3. Storm sewer design considerations
4. Resurfacing of the entire street with bituminous asphalt.
5. Sidewalk sections reviewed for replacement.
6. Boulevard areas re -sodded.
This report and the estimated costs for the project are prepared without the benefit of field
surveys, soils boring or completed plans and specifications:
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$119,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$5,700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$5,000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$129,700.00
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$38.910.00
TOTAL
$168,610.00
_2_
NOVEMBER 2, 2000
Assessment Distribution:
The cost of street rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2001 will be
used for this project as follows:
Residential Zones.............$15.45 per assessable foot
Commercial Zones ...........$23.18 per assessable foot
Residential corner lot assessments are based on the length of the short side of the lot plus any
length greater than 120 feet on the long side if the long side is reconstructed.
Curb Gutter Overlay Rates
Year
2001
feet
Total
Cost
Residential Zones
$15.45
1,851.50
$28,605.68
Commercial Zones
$23.18
Subtotal $28,605.68
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed
directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates:
4" Sidewalk(residential).................................................$5.15 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial)...............................................$5.92 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches).................$6.70 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) ..............$7.21 per square foot
6" Cone. Drive Approach (residential)...........................$30.90 per square yard
Residential corner lot sidewalk assessments are based on the replacement length of the short side
of the lot plus half the quantity on long side if the long side is replaced. The long side credit
reflects the half dollar amount for all long side quantities.
Sidewalks
sq. ft
Total
Cost
4"Sidewalk (residential)
1,084.14
$5,583.32
5" Sidewalk (commercial)
L2001
6"Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches)
82.62
$553.55
T' Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches
Subtotal
$6,136.88
credit for long side
Subtotal
$6,136.88
Proiect Distribution:
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$28,605.68
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$6,136.88
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
lCIty Street Share
$133,867.45
TOTAL
$168,610.00
Submitted for your consideration:
Russell Kelm, PE
Douglas Nelson, PE
P:\PRbJECTS\J-PROJ'y9734\DcsiGn\➢ocs\feasibility 8rport.DOC
W
- 3 - NovENIBt:R 1, 2000
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY ON
4TH AVE NW FROM ZUMBRO DR TO 31ST ST NW
Y:\]'RO�ECiS\I-pRflf\j973i\I�ctigalOucs\fcmib�l'h Rcpnv.DOC
— 4— NovL'%IBHR 1. 2000
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No:
6304-4-00 Date:
November 1 2000
J No:
9734
Description:
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW
from Zumbro Dr to 31st St NW
Project
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving,Curb & Gutter
$119,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$5 700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$5 000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$129,700.00
Engineering, Interest, Contin enctes 30%
$38,910.00
TOTAL
$168,610.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$28,605.68
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$6,136.88
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
]Cfty Street Share
$133,867.45
TOTAL
1 $168,610.00
Note:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
Y:'J°R(111:a.; CS\1-PRUJ` 197,34` 1)L,ign\Uucs\fcmA ilrtp Iicport.DUC
f� �
y
�� Alfredo &Georgian Castellanos 2909 4i° Ave.N
�L4 Rochester, Ma. 55901
(507)280-9388
NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION TO HAVE CURB AND GUTTERS INSTALLED ON 4TH AVE.
N.W. BETWEEN ZUMBRO DR. AND 31sT. N.W.
Dear Dave Nelson,
These are the names and addresses of all the neighbors interested in getting the curb, gutters and
resurfesed street between Zumbro Dr. and 31 o Street North West.
Name Address
Il \
f I
rc�1� r 1 l'j V—)Z>5
J �w AY/err a
lUvr
Sincerely,
'f
ado 6-,� 7
Sa-0--coCR
AAJ
Grey_ c/{o5$
............................
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 131
DATE: 11 /6/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J9724)
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1st St SE from 13th Ave SE to 15th Ave SE
This is a Feasibility Report for the, following local improvement project:
Protect Number
6201-2-00 (J9724)
Protect Name
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1 st St SE from 13th Ave SE to 15th Ave SE
ITEM NO.
0,;?
R. elm
Proiect Background
The existing street was constructed with concrete curbing in 1955. The age and deterioration of the concrete curb
and gutter dictate replacement.
At the request of the property owners an informational meeting was held on October 17, 2000. Their support for a
rehabilitation project resulted in this request for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report.
Estimated Project Costs
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$101,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$9,700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$4,000.00
Watermaln Replacement
$0.00
Wateonain Service Replacement
Benue Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$114,700.00
lEnnineering, Interest Contin encies 30%
534410.00
TOTAL
$149.110.00
Protect Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Fronte a
$21,137.30
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$7,190.42
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
Citv Street Share
$1207B2.28
TOTAL
$149,110.00
Recommendation
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based on the current condition
of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1.Adopt a resolution receiving the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt a resolution ordering a Project Hearing to be held for December 11, 2000.
3. Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll.
4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for December 11. 2000.
Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, petition
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
1q
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
PROJECT NO. 6201-2-00 J9724
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY
IST ST SE FROM 13TH AVE SE TO 15TH AVE SE
November 2, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Curb. Gutter & Overlay on I st St SF from '131It five SF to 15111 Ave Ski, was referred to
the Public Works Department on .tune 1999 for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility
Report.
Feasibility Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based
on the current condition of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
The existing street was constructed with concrete curbing in 1955.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's
Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective,
cost-effective program for the preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's
infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at this time for this street, which has a
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 32, is rehabilitation.
Work typically will include the following
1. Removal of existing edges of the roadway and gravel base, boulevard sod
2. Construction of concrete curb and gutter, and driveway aprons
3. Storm sewer design considerations
4. Resurfacing of the entire street with bituminous asphalt.
5. Sidewalk sections reviewed for replacement.
6. Boulevard areas re -sodded.
This report and the estimated costs for the project are prepared without the benefit of field
surveys, soils boring or completed plans and specifications:
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$101,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$9,700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$4.000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$114,700A0
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$34,410.00
TOTAL
$149,110.00
1s
- 2 - NOVEMBER 2, 2000
Assessment Distribution:
The cost of street rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2001 will be
used for this project as follows:
Residential Zones.............$15.45 per assessable foot
Commercial Zones ...........$23.18 per assessable foot
Residential corner lot assessments are based on the length of the short side of the lot plus any
length greater than 120 feet on the long side if the long side is reconstructed.
Curb Gutter Overlay Rates
Year
2001
1 feet
Total
Cost
Residential Zones
$15.45
1 1,368.11
$21,137.30
Commercial Zones
$23.18
Subtotal
$21,137.30
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed
directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates:
4" Sidewalk (residential).................................................$5.15 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial)...............................................$5.92 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches).................$6.70 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) ..............$7.21 per square foot
6" Conc. Drive Approach (residential)...........................$30.90 per square yard
Residential comer lot sidewalk assessments are based on the replacement length of the short side
of the lot plus half the quantity on long side if the long side is replaced. The long side credit
reflects the half dollar amount for all long side quantities.
Sidewalks
2001
sq. ft
sq. ft
Total
Cost
4" Sidewalk (residential)
$5.15
1,399.67
$7,208.30
5' Sidewalk (commercial)
$5.92
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches)
$6.70
107.13
$717.77
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)
$7.21
Subtotal
$7,926.07
Long side credit
1 ($735.65)
Subtotal
1 $7,190.42
Project Distribution:
Distribution:
Special Assessments • Frontage
$21.137.30
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$7.190.42
Special Assessments - SerWce Replace
Water Utility Funds
MOD
Sanitary Sewer Mity Funds
$0.00
CI Street Snare
3120,782.28
TOTAL
$149,110.00
Submitted for your consideration:
Russell Kelm, PE
Douglas Nelson, PE
PAPROJl icy Reporr.DOC
�69
le
- 3 - NOVEMBER 1, 2000
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY
1ST ST SE FROM 13TH AVE SE TO 15TH AVE SE
P:\PKO�ECI'S�I }'Kf 7)\j97_�\llenign\,ll�xx\Fca+ibilits Repom.DOC
— 4— NOVEMBER 1, 2000
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No:
6201-2-00 Date:1
November 1, 2000
J No:
9724
Description:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1 st St SE
from 13th Ave SE to 1Sth Ave SE
Project
Cost
Contract
Cast
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$101 000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$9,700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$4 000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$114.700.00
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$34,410.00
TOTAL
$149,1 10.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$21,137.30
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$7,190.42
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water UtIlity Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
lCity Street Share
$120,782.28
TOTAL
$149,110.00
Note:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
'.\I'RUILf,,'1'S':,l-1''WCJ\19i,111cpon.1X1C
Fol
Form I
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
Rochester, Minnesota _..._,_._ _. _ : �C.iL. ]917
To the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota:
We, the undersigned, owners of not less than 35 per cent in frontage of the real property abutting on the
streets designated below, hereby petition for the following local improvement(s) pursuant to Chapter 429, Min-
nesola Statutes, as amended:
DESCRIPTION OF IMPRQVEM=S
111-ilE-6
SIGNATURE I
LOT I BLOCK
SUBDIVISION OR ADDITION
I FRONTAGE
o . S.
a—►
I iRvfFq S�)tvn6Ps O'F')
�
CFt�l�Vt l Sr�M�L��iJ
V-f, 5
lvot�op)
Ito
3,
M9vOe SAPJ066-'s6rJ
v
l
WVEY SA7vDCLS0A)
lq
a.
V�Y sAiv(JcQ-SofJ
T
3
I
wwvE( Q11vDcP'Sorj
�
r1n'✓E�f Sf��J�.SurJ
`
AS Akel
I
4Ak%,EY SAPJdRSold
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
,r)g
11 /6/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J9723)
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 19th Ave NW from 19th St NW to
Valley High Drive
This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6319-4.00 (J9723)
Project Name
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 19th Ave NW from 19th St NW to Valley High Drive
Project Background
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in 1957 and 1963.
ITEM NO.
Z)-a 5
PREPARED BY:
R. Kelm
At the request of the property owners an informational meeting was held on October 25, 2000. Their support for a
rehabilitation project resulted in this request for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report.
Estimated Protect Costs
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$212,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$11.800oo
Storm Sewer Repairs/Uparades
$9,000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanity Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$232,800.00
IlEnolneeHnij, Interest Contingencies 30%
1 $69840.00
TOTAL
1 $302,640.00
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$8,596.38
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$5,7108.89
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sancta Sewer Wility Funds
0.00
City Street Share
$208 334.73
TOTAL
$302,640.00
Recommendation
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based on the current condition
of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1.Adopt a resolution receiving the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt a resolution ordering a Project Hearing to be held for December 11, 2000.
3.Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll.
4.Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for December 11, 2000.
Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, petition
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
PROJECT NO. 6319-4-00 J9723
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY
19TH AVE NW FROM 19TH ST NW TO VALLEY HIGH
DRIVE
November 2, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Curb. (3uttcr. & Ovcrlav on 1901 Arc NW Ilnni 19i17 1;1 till' I V% ilIc4 I Belt I)ricc, was
referred to the Public Works Department on .I un: - 3. 0oo for preparation of the
Engineers Feasibility Report.
Feasibility Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based
on the current condition of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in 1957 and 1963.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's
Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective,
cost-effective program for the preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's
infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at this time for this street, which has a
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 25-3 5, is rehabilitation.
Work typically will include the following
I. Removal of existing edges of the roadway and gravel base, boulevard sod
2. Construction of concrete curb and gutter, and driveway aprons
3. Storm sewer design considerations
4. Resurfacing of the entire street with bituminous asphalt.
5. Sidewalk sections reviewed for replacement.
6. Boulevard areas re -sodded.
This report and the estimated costs for the project are prepared without the benefit of field
surveys, soils boring or completed plans and specifications:
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$212,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$11,800.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$9,000.00
Watermain Re lacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$232,800.00
En ineerin , Interest, Contingencies 30%
$69,840.00
TOTAL
$302,640.00
- 2 - NOVEMBER 2, 2000
Assessment Distribution:
The cost of street rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2001 will be
used for this project as follows:
Residential Zones.............$15.45 per assessable foot
Commercial Zones ...........$23.18 per assessable foot
Residential comer lot assessments are based on the length of the short side of the lot plus any
length greater than 120 feet on the long side if the long side is reconstructed.
Curb Gutter Overlay Rates
Year
2001
feet
Total
I Cost
Residential Zones
$15.45
556.401
$8,598.38
Commercial Zones
$23.18
Subtotal
1 $8,596.38
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed
directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates:
4" Sidewalk (residential).................................................$5.15 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial)...............................................$5.92 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches).................$6.70 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) ..............$7.21 per square foot
6" Cone. Drive Approach (residential) ........................... $30.90 per square yard
Residential corner lot sidewalk assessments are based on the replacement length of the short side
of the lot plus half the quantity on long side if the long side is replaced. The long side credit
reflects the half dollar amount for all long side quantities.
Sidewalks
2001
sq. ft
sq. ft
Total
Cost
4" Sidewalk (residential)
$5.15
2,022.20
$10,414.33
5" Sidewalk (commercial)
$5.92
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches)
$6.70
149.77
$1,003.46
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)
$7.21
Subtotal
$11,417.79
credit for long side
($5,708.89)
Subtotal
$5,708.89
Project Distribution:
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$8,596.38
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$5,708.89
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
Ci Street Share
$288,334.73
TOTAL
$302,640.00
Submitted for your consideration:
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
Douglas Nelson, PE
Engineering Manager
P:\PROfECTB\J-PRo I1j9723\Desi-,n\Does\fcasibiliry Repon.DOC
S�-
- 3 - NovEntBeR 1, 2000
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY ON
19TH AVE NW FROM 19TH ST NW TO VALLEY HIGH DRIVE
Y:U?RC)(liCl'SU-YRUf \j97�M1\lleny� ',llue \ fcuibffi g Repoxt.DOC
83 '
— 4 — NovEMBER 1. 2000
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No:
6319.4-00 Date:
November 1, 2000
J No:
9723
Description:
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 19th Ave NW
from 19th St NW to Valley High Drive
Project
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$212 000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$11 800.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$9 000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$232,800.00
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$69,840.00
TOTAL
$302,640.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$8 696.38
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$5 708.89
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
Ci Street Share
$288,334.73
TOTAL
$302,640.00
Note:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. 1. R. Fund
Y:\PAOLI Cf:1'ti\I-Pitt t)\j97-li\Ucsign`;liuc `•,tca>i6iliu}iepori.l:)UC
PETITION TO HAVE REPAIR AND UPGRADE TO 19th AVENUE NW
BETWEEN 19th STREET NW AND VALLEY HIGH DRIVE.
Due to heavy traffic flow, 19th Avenue Northwest is deteriorating and is in need
of repair. There are a number of potholes developing and the avenue is degrading
rapidly.
We the undersigned would like to see the following done to 19th Ave NW:
1) Resurfaced between 19th Street NW and Valley High Drive.
2) Curb and gutter installed on same.
Per City Engineer Doug Nelsonjthe cost to have this done will be:
A) For those lots bordering 19th Ave which have had the street past the
residence resurfaced, plus curb and gutter installed, the first 1201' 421 s
feet will be free. Anything over 120 lineal feet would be assesse $15.00 Ck
per lineal foot. (This includes installation of a concrete drive appr-0
between 19th Ave and the sidewalk, if required.)
B) For those lots bordering 19th Ave which have not had the street
resurfaced or curb and gutter installed past the residence, the cost will be:
a) $15.00 per lineal foot for the short side of the lot if it fronts 19th Ave.
OR
b) If the long side of the lot fronts 19th Ave, the assessment will be
based on the short side of the lot plus the long side in excess of 120
lineal feet. (This cost includes installation of a concrete drive
approach between 19th Ave and the sidewalk, if required.)
When, in the future, the street past the residence is upgraded, $15.00
per lineal foot (up to 120 lineal feet) will be deducted from the cost
of the street upgrade. There will not be a double charge for both
the avenue and street upgrades.
rMIMM
ADDRESS
/k/:,6 /7 % J=Z')I, rAJ,
sr i06)
-6�- lfzr%' Z<J
AM
NAME ADDRESS
a �7 1 L
19 U E N. W.
/6a3//ZO2 /mot-Wol .dl k)
), v, fmi S7 4.I t)
;/S /9'Il 41,e A/lc�
Aycr N .lk)
IbO/�O��
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/6/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the
;kA
Elmcroft Subdivision Area, J9746
This is the Feasibility Report for the construction of sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Elmcroft
Subdivision Area in a project described as follows:
Project No. M1-02, J9746
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Elmcroft Subdivision Area."
The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $1,198,520
Service Connections 105,000
Trunk Watermain 59,230
Sub -Total $1,362,750
Engineering/Interest/Contingencies 408,825
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,771,575
The Elmcroft Area sewer and water extension project is included in the proposed 2001 Capital Budget.
The Elmcroft Area is currently outside the City limits. The City has initiated the annexation of this Area
and other areas in Rochester Township that are 100% surrounded by the City. The Second Reading of
an Ordinance to annex this 100% surrounded area is scheduled for the November 6, 2000 City Council
Meeting. If the City Council approves the Second Reading for the annexation no Orderly Annexation
Agreement is required between Rochester Township and the City of Rochester for this Area.
The project is proposed to be funded from sewer and water connection charges (Utility Connection
Agreements), Sales Tax eligible Water Availability Charges, Water Utility (oversize watermain costs),
City Share (City park land) and Sales Tax revenue.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing a Project Hearing for December 11, 2000.
Attachments: Feasibility Report
Location Map
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Sewer & Water
Sewer Only
Water Only
Project No M1-02, J9746
Sanitary Sewer and Watemnain to
Serve the Eln-croft Subdivision Area
81 ,
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TO SERVE THE ELMCROFT SUBDIVISION AREA.
October 31, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A petition for sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Elmcroft Subdivision Area was forwarded by
the City Council at their meeting of April 19, 1999 to the Public Works Department for the preparation
of a Feasibility Report. The petition was checked and found to be in proper form and was signed by 51 of
71 property owners of lots containing a single-family residential dwelling. This represents 71.8 percent
of the single-family residential lots within the Elmcroft Area that are eligible to participate in the City of
Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1999. The
Elmcroft Area also includes 4 developed commercial lots and 16 undeveloped single-family residential
lots.
Feasibility Report
We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of
this project is within an area of existing single-family residential development and existing commercial
development that currently lacks public sanitary sewer and watermain. A majority of the septic systems
and wells within the Area were constructed prior to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having
any requirements or standards for construction of septic systems and wells. The lots are typically under
'/2 acre in size and are unable to absorb the nitrates created from the septic systems. There is an
increasing threat of contamination to the City of Rochester's ground water supply as the existing septic
systems and wells begin to fail. This project would allow property owners of lots containing existing
single-family residential dwellings and developed commercial lots to connect to public sanitary sewer
and water systems rather than replacing their old systems when they fail. This project also allows the
undeveloped single-family residential lots to develop with public sewer and watermain
The costs of this project are proposed to be recovered through sanitary sewer and watermain connection
charges (Utility Connection Agreements), sales tax revenue appropriated to the City of Rochester, Water
Quality Protection Program for both existing single-family residential and existing commercial
development, and Water Availability Charges.
The proposed project consists of the installation of an 8-inch sanitary sewer lines, 8-inch watermain
lines, sanitary sewer and water service connections, and 12" trunk watermain lines, throughout the
Elmcroft Subdivision Area.
Public sanitary sewer is currently available in the West Frontage Road of South Broadway and in
Oakridge Drive SW. Sanitary sewer will be extended from these locations to serve Elmcroft Area.
Therefore, an extension of trunkline sanitary sewer is not required to serve the Elmcroft Area.
Watermain is currently available in the West Frontage Road of South Broadway, in Oakridge Drive SW
and in 25th Street SW. Watermain will be extended from these locations to serve the Elmcroft Area. The
West Frontage Road of South Broadway is currently served by the low level water system. Oakridge
Drive and 25th Street are served by the Golden Hill Water Tower and are on the high level water system.
A trunk watermain will be extended in the West Frontage Road to enable the entire Elmcroft Area to be
served by the high level water system.
Applicable Connection Charge Rates and per Lot Caps
Since the Elmcroft Subdivision Area petition was received prior to August 1, 1999, the date that the
Water Quality Protection Program rates and per lot caps were adjusted by the change in the Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area during the preceding
calendar year, the Department of Public Works recommends that the sanitary sewer and watermain
connection charges for this project be based on the connection charge rates and per lot caps in affect at
the time the petition was received by the City as follows:
• Maximum sanitary sewer and water connection charge rate of $66.30 per foot of frontage.
• Maximum sewer and water connection charge per lot cap for a developed lot that contains a
habitable single family dwelling unit shall be as follows:
1) maximum $8,160 per lot for any developed lot 1/2 acre or less.
2) $8,160 per lot, plus $0.19 per square foot for any developed lot greater than
acre up to 1-1/2 acre.
3) maximum $16,320 per lot for any developed lot 1-1/2 acre or larger.
The estimated construction costs and expenses of the project made without completed plans or survey are
as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $ 1,558,075
Trunk Watermain $ 77,000
Sewer Service Connection Stub -Outs $750 per service x 91 services $ 68,250
Water Service Connection Stub -out $750 per service x 91 services $ 68,250
Estimated Cost of the Project $ 1,771,575
The estimated project costs are proposed to be funded as follows:
Utility Connection Agreements $ 846,540
Water Availability Charges (Sales Tax supported) $ 68,750
Water Utility for Oversize Watermain Costs $ 8,250
City Share (City Owned Park Land)1,200 feet x $66.30 per foot = $79,560 $ 79,560
Sales Tax Revenue (see below) $ 768,475
Estimated Project Costs $1,771,575
Amount of sales tax revenue required for the Project
Sales Tax (Rate Cap and per Lot Cap) $ 655,975
Sales Tax (Sewer Service Connection Stub -Out Allowances) 75 services x $750/serv. $ 56,250
Sales Tax (Water Service Stub -Out Allowances)75 services x $750/serv. $ 56,250
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Funding Required for Construction of Project $ 768,475
t
Estimated additional sales tax revenue required for work on private property
Of the 91 lots within the project area 71 lots contain a single-family residential dwelling and 4 lots
contain a commercial development. These lots are eligible for Allowances through the Water Quality
Protection Program as follows:
Sewer Service Lateral
75 lots x $1,000 per lot
$
75,000
Water Service Lateral
75 lots x $1,000 per lot
$
75,000
Well Closure
75 lots x $1,100 per lot
$
75,000
Septic Closure
75 lots x $ 500 per lot
$
37,500
Estimated Amount of Sales
Tax Revenue Required for Allowances
$
262,500
For Work on Private Property
Estimated sales tax revenue required for construction of Protect and Allowances
Estimated Amount Sales Tax Revenue for Construction of the Project $ 768,475
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 262,500
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Construction of the Project and $1,030,975
Allowances for Work on Private Property
We recommend that the necessary funding to construct sanitary sewer, watermain and service
connections in the Elmcroft Subdivision Area be done so in accordance with the City of Rochester's
existing sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge policies and the Water Quality Protection
Program. Property owners that desire to participate in the Water Quality Protection Program and the
benefits contained therein, are required to:
1. Enter into a Utility Connection Agreement with the City within three (3) years of the date the
City initiates the project.
2. Connect the existing single-family residential dwelling or existing developed commercial
property to the public sewer and water systems within five (5) years of the date of project
initiation.
3. Consent to annexation of their property consistent with the conditions of an Orderly Annexation
Agreement between the City and Rochester Township, or to the City initiated annexation of the
Area as is currently proposed by the City.
Submitted for your consideration:
M.
Protection Program
Project
R�-
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: M1-02
J No: 9746
Date (Orig.) 10/31/2000
Description: Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Extension to Serve Elmcroft Subdivision Area
Construction
Sanitary Sewer & Watermain
Service Connections
Trunk Watermain
E ncineerinalinterest/Contingency
Total Construction & Expense
Cost Distribution
Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements
Water Availability Charges
Water Utility (oversize watermain costs)
City Share (City owned park land)
Sales Tax Funding
TOTAL
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
Project Contract Final
Budget Cost Cost
$1 198 520
105,000
59,230
408,825
$1 771 575
$ 846,540
68,750
8,250
79,560
768,475
$1 771 575
J
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a 3 1�
DATE: 11/6/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
J —;2
/
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the
PREPARED BY:
Forest Hills Subdivision Area, J9748
J. Loehr
This is the Feasibility Report for the construction of sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Forest
Hills Subdivision Area in a project described as follows:
ProiectNo. M1-04, J9748
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area."
The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $1,029,945
Service Connections 79,615
Sub -Total $1,109,560
Engineeringlinterest/Contingencies 332,868
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,442,428
The Forest Hills Area sewer and water extension project is included in the proposed 2001 Capital
Budget.
The Forest Hills Area is currently outside the City limits. The City has initiated the annexation of this
Area and other areas in Rochester Township that are 100% surrounded by the City. The Second
Reading of an Ordinance to annex this 100% surrounded area is scheduled for the November 6, 2000
City Council Meeting. If the City Council approves the Second Reading for the annexation no Orderly
Annexation Agreement is required between Rochester Township and the City of Rochester for this
Area.
The project is proposed to be funded from sewer and water connection charges (Utility Connection
Agreements) and Sales Tax revenue.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing a Project Hearing for December 11, 2000.
Attachments: Feasibility Report
Location Map
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TO SERVE FOREST HILLS SUBDIVISION AREA.
October 31, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A petition for sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area was forwarded by
the City Council at their meeting of April 5, 1999 to the Public Works Department for the preparation of
a Feasibility Report. The petition was checked and found to be in proper form and was signed by 39 of
63 property owners of lots containing a single-family residential dwelling. This represents 61.9 percent
of the single-family residential lots within the Forest Hills Area that are eligible to participate in the City
of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1999.
The Forest Hills Area also includes 6 undeveloped single-family residential lots.
Feasibilitv Report
We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of
this project is within an area of existing single-family residential development that currently lacks public
sanitary sewer and an adequate public water system. A majority of the septic systems this Area were
constructed prior to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having any requirements or standards
for construction of septic systems and wells. The lots are typically under'/2 acre in size and are unable to
absorb the nitrates created from the septic systems. There is an increasing threat of contamination to the
City of Rochester's ground water supply as the existing septic systems and wells begin to fail. This
project would allow property owners of lots containing existing single-family residential dwellings to
connect to public sanitary sewer system rather than replacing their old systems when they fail. This
project also allows the undeveloped single-family residential lots to develop with public sewer and
watermain
The costs of this project are proposed to be recovered through sanitary sewer and watermain connection
charges (Utility Connection Agreements), sales tax revenue appropriated to the City of Rochester, Water
Quality Protection Program, for existing single-family residential lots that contain a dwelling.
The proposed project consists of the installation of an 8-inch sanitary sewer lines, 8-inch watermain
lines, and sanitary sewer and water service connections throughout the Forest Hills Subdivision Area.
Public sanitary sewer is currently available on the Bible College property that is located north of the
Area, and in Woodcrest Lane SW that is located west of the Area on the west side of TH52. The
extension of sub-trunkline sanitary sewer from the Bible College southerly to 20th Street SW is required
to serve a majority of the Forest Hills Area. The extension of sub-trunkline sanitary sewer from
Woodcrest Lane SW easterly under TH52 is required to serve lots along Edgewood Court SW located on
the west edge of Forest Hills Subdivision.
Water service is currently available from the Golden Hill Water Tower and from a trunk watermain
located in 20th Street SW. Therefore, the construction of a now water tower or the extension of trunk
watermain is not required to serve the Forest Hills Area. However, some looping of watermain may be
required to serve the Forest Hills Area.
Forest Hills Privately Owned Water System
The Forest Hills Subdivision was previously served by a private water system. The private water system
was in poor condition and was unable to provide the Forest Hills property owners with dependable water
service. After the City Council accepted the Forest Hills Subdivision Area petition, Rochester Public
Utilities, purchased the private water system. RPU connected the water system to the 20th Street SW
trunk watermain and assumed the maintenance responsibilities of the water system.
This project requires that the water system be replaced with a new public watermain. Each property
owner in the Forest Hills Area is subject to a watermain connection charge consistent with the Water
Quality Protection Program policies.
The Water Quality Protection Program requires that property owners that have individual private wells
and septic systems must connect to both the city water and sewer to receive the Program benefits.
However, since the Forest Hills property owners do not have individual private wells, but rather a private
water system that needs to be replaced, the City will not require Forest Hill's property owners to
immediately connect to city sewer if and when the City replaces the private water system. The benefits
of the Water Quality Protection Program only extend for 3 years from the date the City Council initiates
the project. Property owners who do not signup for city sanitary sewer in that 3-year period will loose
the opportunity to receive the Program benefits and allowances related to the installation of city sewer.
When individual septic system fails in the future the property owner will be required to connect to city
sewer that has been installed to serve their property.
Applicable Connection Charge Rates and per Lot Caps
Since the Forest Hills Subdivision Area petition was received prior to August 1, 1999, the date that the
Water Quality Protection Program rates and per lot caps were adjusted by the change in the Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area during the preceding
calendar year, the Department of Public Works recommends that the sanitary sewer and watermain
connection charges for this project be based on the connection charge rates and per lot caps in affect at
the time the petition was received by the City as follows:
• Maximum sanitary sewer and water connection charge rate of $66.30 per foot of frontage.
• Maximum sewer and water connection charge per lot cap for a developed lot that contains a
habitable single family dwelling unit shall be as follows:
1) maximum $8,160 per lot for any developed lot 1/2 acre or less.
2) $8,160 per lot, plus $0.19 per square foot for any developed lot greater than''/x
acre up to 1-1/2 acre.
3) maximum $16,320 per lot for any developed lot 1-1/2 acre or larger.
The estimated construction costs and expenses of the project made without completed plans or survey are
as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $ 1,338,928
Sewer Service Connection Stub -Outs $750 per service x 69 services $ 51,750
Water Service Connection Stub -out $750 per service x 69 services $ 51,750
Estimated Cost of the Project $ 1,442,428
q /1 /
The estimated project costs are proposed to be funded as follows:
Utility Connection Agreements $ 572,796
Sales Tax Revenue (see below) $ 869,632
Estimated Project Costs $1,442,428
Amount of sales tax revenue required for the Project
Sales Tax (Rate Cap and per Lot Cap) $ 775,132
Sales Tax (Sewer Service Connection Stub -Out Allowances) 63 services x $750/serv. $ 47,250
Sales Tax (Water Service Stub -Out Allowances)63 services x $750/serv. $ 47,250
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Funding Required for Construction of Project $ 869,632
Estimated additional sales tax revenue required for work on private property
Of the 69 lots within the project area 63 lots contain a single-family residential dwelling. These lots are
eligible for Allowances through the Water Quality Protection Program as follows:
Sewer Service Lateral 63 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 63,000
Septic Closure 63 lots x $ 500 per lot $ 31,500
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 94,500
For Work on Private Property
Estimated sales tax revenue required for construction of Project and Allowances
Estimated Amount Sales Tax Revenue for Construction of the Project $ 869,632
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 94,500
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Construction of the Project and $ 964,132
Allowances for Work on Private Property
We recommend that the necessary funding to construct sanitary sewer, watermain and service
connections in the Forest Hills Subdivision Area be done so in accordance with the City of Rochester's
existing sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge policies and the Water Quality Protection
Program. Property owners that desire to participate in the Water Quality Protection Program and the
benefits contained therein, are required to:
1. Enter into a Utility Connection Agreement with the City within three (3) years of the date the
City initiates the project.
2. Connect the existing single-family residential dwelling or existing developed commercial
property to the public sewer and water systems within five (5) years of the date of project
initiation.
3. Consent to annexation of their property consistent with the conditions of an Orderly Annexation
Agreement between the City and Rochester Township, or to the City initiated annexation of the
Area as is currently proposed by the City.
Submitted for your consideration:
V Loehr,
(uality Protection Program
Manager
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: M1-04
J No: 9748
Date (Orig.) 10/31/2000
Description: Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Extension to Serve Forest Hills Subdivision Area
Construction
Sanitary Sewer & Watermain
Service Connections
Enaineerina/I nterest/Contingencv
Total Construction & Expense
Cost Distribution
Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements
Sales Tax Funding
TOTAL
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
Project Contract Final
Budget Cost Cost
$1,029,945
79,615
332,868
$1 442 428
$ 572,796
869,632
$1 442,428
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
q9 -
11 /6/00
"^ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM;NO.CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
j�ITEM
DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report for Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to Serve the
PREBYForest
Hills Subdivision Area, J9747
hr
This is the Feasibility Report for the construction of a sub-trunkline sanitary sewer to serve the Forest
Hills Subdivision Area in a project described as follows:
Project No. MI-03, J9747
"Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area."
The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows:
Construction Cost $219,220
Engineering/Interest/Contingencies 65,766
Total Estimated Project Cost $284,986
The Forest Hills sub-trunkline sanitary sewer is included in the proposed 2001 Capital Budget.
The project is proposed to be funded from sales tax eligible Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) included
in future Utility Connection Agreements, 707 Fund — Sewer Utility for project costs that we don't
anticipate will be recovered and internal borrowing from 707 Fund — Sewer Utility to be recovered from
Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) included in future Developer Agreements and/or City -Owner
Contracts.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report.
Attachments: Feasibility Report
Finance Department Statement of Funding
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
EV
Project No. M1-03, J9747
Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to
Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area
Sub•TnanMine Sevier
L f/AAC
Sub-Trunkline Sevver
Project No M1-04, J9748
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to
Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area
"""" Sewer & Water
Water Only
lol
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FOREST HILLS SUBDIVISION AREA
SUB-TRUNKLINE SANITARY SEWER
October 31, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A petition for sanitary sewer and watermain to serve properties in Forest Hills Subdivision was
previously presented to the City Council for consideration. The installation of a sub-trunkline sanitary
sewer is necessary to serve the properties in the Forest Hills Area that are included in the petition.
Developed properties affected by the sub-trunkline sanitary sewer project are eligible to participate in the
City of Rochester Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1999.
Feasibility Report
We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. This trunkline
sewer project is proposed to be constructed within existing public right of ways. Easement acquisition is
also required for the construction of this project.
A majority of the septic systems and wells within the sub-trunkline sewer district were constructed prior
to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having any requirements or standards for construction of
septic systems and wells. The lots are typically under''/a acre in size and are unable to absorb the nitrates
created from the septic systems. There is an increasing threat of contamination to the City of Rochester's
ground water supply as the existing septic systems and wells begin to fail. This project would facilitate
the extension of sanitary sewer mains within the Forest Hills petition area to allow property owners of
developed lots to connect to public sanitary sewer rather than replacing their old septic systems when
they fail. The proposed project will also provide for future extension of sanitary sewer mains to serve
undeveloped property within the sub-trunkline sewer district.
Sanitary sewer is available in the Bible College property located north of Forest Hills Subdivision, and in
Woodcrest Lane SW located west of Forest Hills Subdivision and west of TH52. This project proposes to
extend sub-trunkline sanitary sewer from these locations as follows:
1. Sub-trunkline sanitary sewer extended from the Bible College sanitary sewer southerly to 20th
Street SE, then easterly to Arlen Court SW, and westerly to Forest Hills Drive SW.
2. Sub-trunkline sanitary sewer extended from the Woodcrest Lane SW sanitary sewer easterly
under TH52 to Edgewood Court SW.
The estimated construction costs and expenses for the project made without completed plans or survey
are as follows:
Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer from Bible College $157,378
Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer from Woodcrest Lane SW $127,608
Total estimated Construction Costs and Expenses $284,986
J
The project costs are proposed to be recovered according to the attached Finance Department Statement
on Funding — WQPP Projects.
We recommend that the necessary funding to construct the Forest Hills Subdivision Area sub-trunkline
sanitary sewer be done so in accordance with the Finance Department Statement on Funding — WQPP
Projects and the Water Quality Protection Program.
Submitted for your consideration:
ruality Protection Program
Manager
163
FM
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: M1-03 Date (Orig.) 10/31/2000
J No: 9747
Description: Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area
Construction
Sanitary Sewer
Engineering/interest/Contingency
Total Construction & Expense
Cost Distribution
Sales Tax Eligible SAC Charges
Direct Charge
707 Fund — Sewer Utility
(Un-recoverable Costs)
Internal Borrowing
707 Fund — Sewer Utility
(Recovered from Future SAC Charges)
TOTAL
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
Project Final
Budget Cost
$ 219,220
65,766
$ 284,986
$ 52,500
179,986
52,500
$ 284,986
1 Oq Finance Dept Statement on Funding - WQPP Projects
Sewer and water projects undertaken as part of the City's Water Quality Protection Program
(WQPP) will be funded by a combination of sources depending upon the ultimate repayment
source for the expenditure as defined in the program. Sources include sales tax revenues, sales
tax bonds, internal borrowing, general obligation special assessment bonds, and available sewer
and water access charge reserves.
Sales Tax Eligible Expenditures -
Sales Tax Revenues / GO Sales Tax Revenue Bonds
For those expenditure items or proportionate shares that are eligible for sales tax funding under
the WQPP, the funding would be sales tax revenues, if available. If insufficient sales tax
revenues exist at the time of contract award, proceeds from GO sales tax revenue bonds
authorized under the sales tax extension legislation, would be the source of funding with
repayment from sales tax revenues. Eligible items for developed property include:
• Water Service Connection Allowance
$750/lot
• Sewer Service Connection Allowance
$750/lot
• Water Service Lateral Allowance
$1,000/lot
• Sewer Service Lateral Allowance
$1,000/lot
• Well Closure Allowance
$1,000/lot
• Septic System Closure Allowance
$1,000/lot
• Sewer availability charges (SAC)()
$1,500/lot
• Water availability charges (WAC)(1)
$2,000/lot
• Caps - Amount over maximum sewer and water connection charges per lot - (maximums set
at $8,160 up to 1/2 acre, $8,160 + $.1873/sq. ft. between 1/2 and 1-1/2 acres and $16,320 for
lots over 1-1/2 acres)
• The unpaid interest that accrues from date of project expenditure until the end of the three
year sign-up grace period.
Note: (1) SAC and WAC collections are used to pay for trunkline sewer and water tower
transmission mains.
Connection Charge Eligible Expenditure -
Temporary Internal Borrowing / GO/SA Bonding
For the portion of project costs that will ultimately be repaid through connection charges to
property owners, the City intends to borrow internally for cash flow purposes. Once the three
year window for sign-up in the program has expired, we would anticipate issuing GO special
assessment bonds for this portion of project costs since, by then, we will have a known level of
participation in the program. Any portions not covered by future special assessment payments
would be the responsibility of the respective water and sewer utilities in proportion to original
costs. Amounts collected under new connection agreements signed after the issuance of bonds
would be turned over to the utility, or used to reduce the utilities' payments on the bonds.
Undeveloped Property Trunkline Sewer, trunk water or water Tower Costs -
SAC and WAC Reserves / Internal Borrowing
The City will first utilize sales tax monies for those developed properties share of SAC and
WAC charges. For undeveloped areas, the City will borrow internally from either the sewer
utility or other cash reserves in an amount equal to that which we calculate recoverable from
future development based upon current SAC and WAC rates. Once these undeveloped areas
develop, SAC and WAC charges paid by developers will repay internal loans plus interest and
M5-
replenish existing fund reserves. Any costs not recovered at this point will be charged directly to
the sewer enterprise for trunkline sewer projects or water enterprise for trunk water and water
tower projects. We anticipate internal borrowing of approximately $5.0 million for this purpose.
Project, No M1-03, J9747:
Applying the funding plans and WQPP guidelines noted above, the following provides sources
and uses of funds for this specific project.
Total Project Uses (Engineer's Estimate):
Project Sources:
Sales Tax Eligible SAC Charges
Forest Hills Subdivision (35 acres x $1,500/acre) $ 52,500
Total Sales Tax Funding
Undeveloped Property Share -
Direct Charge (707 Fund — Sewer Utility) $179,986
Internal Borrowing (707 Fund — Sewer Utility) $52,500
Total Undeveloped Property Share
284 986
$ 52,500
$ 232,486
Total Project Sources: 284 986
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE
lob
11-6-00
er-ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D'P q
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PARKING METER TIME ZONE CHANGES
PREPARED AD.
Ross
The City has received a request from the Mayo Clinic Parking Staff to change parking meter time zones in a 9-block
area in the northwest portion of the Parking Meter District. Attached is a map that shows the boundary of the area
requested. This request is to change the 10-hour meters to a 3-hour limit. The reason stated is to reduce the all -day
employee and contractor parking in this area and to free -up space for patient parking. The study limits have been
expanded to the north to Civic Center Drive and to the west to 6' Avenue. The concept is to expand the meter district
onto the streets adjacent to Mayo employee Lots.
1. 1. Current Parking Inventory:
Petitioned Zone Expanded Zone Total
a) Free Spaces 39 spaces 59 spaces 98
b) 30 minute metered 20 spaces 0 spaces 20
c) 90 minute metered 18 spaces 0 spaces 18
d) 3 hour metered 33 spaces 0 spaces 33
e) 10 hour metered 99 spaces 2 spaces 101
f) Total 209 spaces 61 spaces 270
2. Observations:
a) The study area represents about 15% of the current parking metered district.
b) Current usage: All the spaces with -in the petitioned zone and the expanded study zone are heavily used.
c) The hourly rate for the 10-hour meter is 20 cents / hour.
d) The hourly rate for the 3-hour meter is 40 cents / hour.
3. Planned Parking Changes in this area: There is a new Parking Ramp being designed on block 38 by Mayo Clinic.
It is being built to serve patient parking needs. The entrance will be on 3's Avenue while the exit will be on 4's
Avenue. This will remove some of the 18 on street 10-hour metered spaces. The parking adjacent to the new
Sunstone Hotel will also remove temporarily during the construction time.
4. Expanded Parking Study Area: Preliminary review indicates all the free spaces in the study area are heavily used
by all -day employee parkers. There are other property owners involved in some of these locations. Staff will be
contacting these property owners in the near future, and will bring back to the council any changes requested.
5. Recommendations:
a) Proceed with the petition on a "Phased Basis" of approximately 1/3 at a time.
b) Convert approximately 30 of the 10-hour spaces to 3-hour duration.
c) Pick areas that are the closest walk to the nearest Mayo Patient door.
d) Move those 10-hour meters out to the FREE area in the expanded study zone after contacting all the property
owners.
e) Provide daily enforcement of the overtime parking regulation.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution making the following changes to Section I
"Metered Parking" of Comprehensive Traffic and Parking resolution book to read:
A. Zone E- 90 minute; delete the following paragraphs: (see attached list)
B. Zone G — 3 Hour meters, amend to read: (see attached list)
C. Zone J — 10 hour, delete the following paragraphs (see attached list)
Page 1 of 2
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING '
DATE: 11-6-00
AGENDA'ta�
ECTION: j ,� ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
�.�SJ=kiA/ DA rrbfitWorks
ITEIV4DE$CRIPFIOIiY , �,?RpN jMETEfTIfuIE'HANfES (page 2) PREPARED BY:
vn._D. Rossman
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution making the following changes to Section I
"Metered Parking" of Comprehensive Traffic and Parking resolution book to read:
A. Zone E- 90 minute; amend or delete the following paragraphs as described:
IA. Amend to read: West Center Street, on both sides, from 2nd Avenue to 3 d Avenue.
Delete paragraphs 5,13,19,and 21.
B. Zone G — 3 Hour meters, amend this entire section to read:
1. First Avenue NW, on both sides, from 2"d Street to Civic Center Drive NW.
2. Second Avenue SW, on the west side, from 4'h Street SW to 2"d Street NW.
3. Second Avenue NW, on both sides, from 2"d Street NW to 3`d Street NW
4. Third Avenue SW/NW, on both sides, from 4'h St. SW to 2"d Street NW.
5. Fourth Avenue SW/ NW, on both sides, from 4" Street SW to 2"d Street NW.
6. West Center Street, on both sides, from 3`d Avenue to 5" Avenue.
7. First Street SW, on both sides, from 4'h Avenue to 6'h Avenue
8. Second Street SW, on both sides, from 2"d Avenue SW to 3`d Avenue SW.
9. Second Street NW from Broadway to 4' Avenue NW
10. Third Street SW, on both sides, from 4" Avenue SW to 5' Avenue SW.
11. Third Street NW, on the south side, from 1" Avenue to 2nnd Avenue NW
C. Zone 7 —10 hour, amend this entire section to read:
I . South Broadway, on both sides, from 5`h Street to 61h Street.
2. First Avenue Northeast, on both sides, from I" Avenue to 2"d Avenue.
3. First Avenue SW, on both sides, from 4" Street to Soldiers Field Memorial Park.
4. Second Avenue Southwest, on both sides, from 41h Street to 5`h Street.
5. Third Avenue Southwest, on both sides, from 4" Street to 6`h Street.
6. Fourth Avenue Southwest, on both sides, from 41h Street to 6" Street.
7. Sixth Avenue SW, on the east side of the street, from Center Street to 1"' Street.
8. First Street Northeast, on both sides, from 1 "' Avenue to the Zumbro River.
9. Second Street Northeast, on both sides, from Broadway to I" Avenue
10. Fifth Street Southwest, on both sides, from 1" Avenue to 4'h Avenue.
11. Sixth Street Southwest, on both sides, from 1" Avenue to 2"d Avenue.
Page 2 of 2
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:
L
Sento
Citizens q
I Park Ce in
nor HouseParking
El
AR NO NW i9HFL
Senior
lillizen
enter
D
W
Al
Ww.,,'[ ST
W
W
,d 0 1 Roahester,
cz
MMOdIst D 2
Hospitai clays in 4,-
Sr
We
GuairaKehlerr"I nar
Gonda Parked Tip fi' Q
Building
--v *-OUtlMr a at
Can
ne W. M. d.1 Kahl Peat n
LA
Ce erplo a
SlebensnxhesR G 1 a r61
a 3
Bldg. May Ilding it Plummer pa Ion a v
am P?r m E'Public
Library
nk
Bun
25 SW
Bldg
Marque
Baldwin
r
Hillon
Bldg HItton Chaser ma —Mg
rp
=r Hotel Or Of
Parld
3A.
0
Governinan
0 Centw
I - I I
4� ST SW-,
tllus
Bank
3ENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
f-171[3ri STM
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Change Order #2 for City Project 8215-31-00 (J-2
"2000 Restoration of The Second Street Ramp
MEETING t ` t
DATE: 11-6-00
ITEM NO.
a -30
PREPARED BY- J
a„ D. Rossmar5
This is a recommendation to approve Change Order #2 for City Project 8215-31-00 (J-2594)
"2000 Restoration of The Second Street Ramp " The total cost of C.O.#2 is-$9,014. The
items contained in the Change Order #2 are the result of finding less areas to restore than
were shown on the contract drawings in the area of Top of Slab Repair, bottom of slab repair,
vertical and overhead repairs, Sealing of random cracks, and Sealing of construction joints.
Total project costs are now estimated as follows:
Current Restoration Contract with Brent Anderson Associates, Inc $ 322,900
Change Order #2 $ - 9,014
Total $ 313,886
Engineering & Inspection $ 32,800
This project is funded on page 342 of the 2000 city budget, and is funded from retained
earnings. Staff recommends that Council proceed with Change Order #2.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution approving Change Order #2 for City Project 8215-31-00 (J-2594)
"2000 Restoration of The Second Street Ramp.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ! (3
DATE: 11-6-00
or-ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
jj 3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Special Parking Zone for the County Coroner
PREPARED BY:
D. Rossm in
The City has received a request from Dr. Paul Belau, County Coroner to designate an on -street parking
space for the specific use of the Coroner's vehicle while conducting the official duties of the
department. The location requested is on the south side of 3rd Street SW 1200 block. This location
would be convenient to both the medical office and the morgue.
The location has been used temporarily during the construction of the Gonda and the Laboratory
Services Building. The location has been reviewed with Sgt. Bob Schei of the City police and he
recommends in favor of the request. The location is presently signed "No Parking" since it is near the
loading dock. However, during the time that it has been used as a temporary spot, there has been no
conflict with vehicles using the dock. The Coroner's vehicle is not there at all times.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution amending paragraph 8.0 of section C "Special Parking Zones" (Zone A
-General) to read;
8_0 Third Street SW, on the south side, from 2"d Avenue west a distance of 20 feet plus or minus. (1
stall for the Olmsted County Coroner)
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 11-06-00
DATE: // cz—
AGENDA SECTIONO
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
MAYO SPONSORSHIP OF BUS SERVICE FOR NORTHWEST PARK & RIDE LOT
fKNAUEAR-
SinceITEM
July 1999 Mayo Clinic has provided partial sponsorship of bus service on Routes 12 , 18
Direct (formerly 12 Direct) and Route 4 Direct. These sponsorships provide additional trips to the
Northwest Family Medicine and park and ride programs at Walmart North and Cub Foods. Mayo
has requested that the frequency be increased and that the service start earlier and be extended
until 10:00 p.m. A proposed schedule has been developed that meets this request.
The general public benefits from the increased service made possible by the financial sponsorship.
For instance underthis proposal service will increase to 5 and 10 minute frequencies during peak
hours from the current 20 and 30 minutes and 20 to 25 minutes during midday from the current
40 to 45 minutes. Also the proposal includes night service from downtown to the northwest
including Maplewood Mall, Rochester Villages and Walmart. (Currently night service is limited to
the college, downtown, St Marys, Apache, Crossroads and Shopko South.) The proposal does
include a route design change for midday Route 12 whereas the bus will not pull into the IBM
plant. Instead IBM employees at the main facility can still ride Route 11 during midday or ride the
shuttle to the 41" Street facilities and transfer to Route12.
It is proposed that a memo of understanding be approved for signature by the City and Mayo
summarizing the service levels and financial sponsorship for increased service. This
understanding provides for either party to terminate the service on 30 days notice. The
sponsorship is based on the service cost less any passenger fares received. The maximum level
of sponsorship has been calculated on a per weekday basis below. Any passenger fares received
would be subtracted from the sponsorship.
• Continued sponsorship of Route 12 midday (815 a.m. —2:45 p.m.) - $110
• Continued sponsorship of Route 18 Direct -$100
• Continued sponsorship on Route 4 Direct to Cub Foods Park & Ride- $100
• Sponsorship for additional weekday service on Route 12 and Route 18 Direct-$369
• Sponsorship for evening service on Route 12-$106
The additional and evening service would be established on demonstration basis subject to
adjustments as mutually agreed between the City and Mayo.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving a memorandum of understanding with Mayo Clinic for
sponsorship of increased bus service on Routes 4, 12 and 18.
_JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 11-06-00
, DATE: I / * )
AGENDA
ITEM
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
NSENT AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS I b-3.3
AGREEMENT FOR PARK & RIDE LOT/ BETHEL LUTHERAN I PREPARED BY:
CHURCH A KNAUER d,
This is a recommendation to renew an agreement with Bethel Lutheran Church at 810 31'
Avenue SE to use their west parking lot for the period 1/1/2001 through 12/31/2001 for a park
and ride facility.
Under the agreement Bethel provides up to 97 spaces for persons to park and ride the City
bus into the downtown. The rider or their employer pays $25.00 a month for the parking space
and bus service. The lot owner is only paid for spaces sold on a basis of $10.00 per space.
The bus program retains $15.00. The spaces are available Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m.
until 6:00 p.m. The agreement can be terminated by either party with 30 days notice.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving an agreement with Bethel Lutheran to establish a
park and ride during 2001 in the 800 block of V Avenue SE.
�wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 11Q06-00
nA-c- If
... II
AGENDA SECTIONO
NG DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
CONSENTAGENDA
ITEM ZIPS DIAL -A -RIDE BIDS FOR 2001 AND 2002 OPERATIONS
:
EKNAAUER
Bids were opened on October31, 2000 for operations of ZIPS Dial -A -Ride. The bid calls for
separate bid prices for 2001 and 2002 based on a per vehicle hour rate. The specifications
also provide for 3 annual extensions for a total contract period of 5 years.
Twelve bid packages were sent out to potential bidders. Only one bid was received which was
from the current operator Rochester Transportation Systems (RTS). The RTS bid was $33 and
$34 per vehicle hour for 2001 and 2002 respectively. The current rate is $23.93. The proposed
budget for 2001 used an estimated rate of approximately $26.00.
In order to award this bid the City has to establish that the bid is reasonable and that there
were no restrictive or unreasonable requirements in the specifications. Staff is proceeding with
this review process. The City would also have to find additional funding. It has also been noted
that the insurance minimums in the specifications were incorrect. The State requires $1 million
coverage while the specifications called for $600,000. The comprehensive/ collision premiums
may have effected the bid due to the value of the new buses. Also as noted the bid rate was
substantially over budget.
Staff is recommending that the bid be rejected and that new bids be solicited calling for
alternative bids with and without vehicular insurance coverage. In the case of the latter the
City would include the buses under its fleet insurance program with the operator responsible
for the deductible.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution rejecting the RTS bid and calling for new bids to be received by
November 28, 2000.
—JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING r °2 r
DATE: t 1/06/2000
.ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO -
Consent Consent Agenda
Water Reclamation Plant
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Sewage Piping Replacement
PREPARED BY:
Lyle J. Zimmerman
Bids were received on November 1, 2000 for the replacement of the raw sewage force main which carries raw
wastewater through the tunnels at the WRP. Holm Brothers Plumbing & Heating of Atwater, Minnesota
submitted the only bid in the amount of $192,500. This bid was substantially below the engineer's estimate.
It is recommended that Holm Brother be awarded a contract for this work.
Council Action Requested:
It is requested that Holm Brothers Plumbing & Heating of Atwater, Minnesota be awarded contract for the
replacement of the force main at the Water Reclamation Plant in the amount of $192,500.
I'OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11
0 Consent Agenda
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Award of Amateur Boxing Franchise
City Clerk
Judy Scherr
On November 1, 1998, the Council awarded the Amateur Boxing Franchise on the condition that
the franchise alternate from year-to-year between the Rochester Youth Boxing Club, Inc. and the
Rochester Fourth Street Boxing Gym.
The Rochester Youth Boxing Club, Inc. held the franchise from November 19, 1999, to December
1, 2000. Therefore, the franchise will transfer on December 1, 2000. to the Rochester Fourth
Street Boxing Gym.
COUNCIL ACTION RFOUESTED
A motion to adopt the prepared resolution awarding the Amateur Boxing Franchise to the
Rochester Fourth Street Boxing Gym for the period of December 1, 2000 to November 30, 2001,
with the condition that the Rochester Youth Boxing Club, Inc. also be allowed to use the
franchise.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: __ second
/
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I
DATE: 11-06-00
Ak7tNUA =L, I IVN:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIG
PLANNING IS . 1
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #00-14 to vacate the 20' wide utility and drainage PREPARED BY:
easement located along the south line of Lots 3, 4, and 5 Bel Air Eighth Subdivision. The Theresa Fogart;
property is located along the south of 371h Street NW and east of 1116 Avenue NW i Planner 1
November 2, 2000
Planning Department Recommendation:
Staff is suggesting that this item be tabled. The applicant's are considering withdrawing this vacation
request.
Council Action Needed.
1. The Council shall motion to table this item.
Distribution:
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 Monday,
November 6, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
6. Robert Suk, Attorney
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 1 45�
DATE: 11/6/00
er_cNDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Police S - 011
ITEM DESCRIPTION: LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT V
Public Hearing
Roger Peterson
The Mayor and the Police Department applied for a Department of Justice Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
earlier this year for an amount of $62,269. This is the fifth LLEBG the Department of Justice has awarded the
community which requires a local match of $6,919.
A public hearing for the purpose of receiving input from interested persons concerning proposed use of grant
funds is required under the block grant program. An Advisory Committee met October 13, 2000 to develop
proposed use of funds. Members of the Advisory Board are:
Roger Peterson
Chief of Police
Robert Miller
Crime Prevention Officer
Darrel Hildebrant
Crime Prevention Specialist
Dennis Johnson
ISD 535
Dave Goslee
Assistant City Attorney
Don Dallman
Rochester/Olmsted County Safety Council
John Powell
Olmsted Court Administrator
Gary Mulleneaux
Public Safety Communications Manager
Areas approved for use of the grant funds include, but are not limited to, programs in Crime Prevention,
Volunteers in Public Safety, Safety Camp/Safari, Crime Free Multi -Housing, Youth Protection, Cop Talk Live,
and Maintenance of Alarm Ordinance Equipment.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Acceptance of the grant award of $62, 269, and approval of the $6, 919 local match.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mon by: second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ( 21 le
DATE: 11/06/00
AGENDA SECTION:
pilhlic Hearing
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CHARTER COMMISSION
ITEM NO.
iF1 , .3
_.A DESCRIPTION: Request for charter amendments by ordinance —redistricting.
PREPARED By:
Charter
Commission
The Charter Commission, upon the recommendation of the City Clerk's and City Attorney's offices,
proposes that the City Council amend subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 1.02 of the Rochester Home Rule
Charter. These subdivisions relate to the timing of the redetermination of ward boundaries and are currently
inconsistent with state law. The Charter Commission also recommends that subdivision 6 of Section 1.02
and Section 3.08 be amended to clarify the results of an elected or appointed officer being bumped from his
or her ward following the redetermination of boundaries. The proposed changes are as follows:
Subd. 2. (Redetermination of boundaries). Within six
Stater, decennial census is filed in the OfflGe of the seGF9taFy the State MIRRese-ta
of state ef of
and
by usable reRGUS #;_;rsts, *r- fliped in the Raffis-pe ef the said secretary if to be filed, Is
ef state, not so
the timelines provided by Minn. Stat. Section 204B.135, the
common council of the City of Rochester shall redetermine the boundaries of the various wards of
the city in accordance with the population determined in sash the official United States decennial
census and in accordance with the standards set forth above. Such redetermined ward boundaries
shall be established by ordinance duly adopted by a majority of all members of the common council
but such ordinance shall not be subject to veto by the mayor.
Subd. 3. (Failure of common council to act). If the common council shall fail to adopt an ordinance
redetermining ward boundaries within the six menths peried preaGFibed timelines established by
state law, said boundaries shall be redetermined and established within thFee (3) FReRth 9 weeks
thereafter by written order of the ward boundary commission which shall consist of the mayor, the
Councilmember-at-large and the president of the charter commission of the City of Rochester. The
mayor shall act as chairman and the president of the charter commission of the city as secretary of
the ward boundary commission. Any two members of the ward boundary commission may adopt the
order redetermining and establishing ward boundaries. Before making its order redetermining and
establishing ward boundaries, the ward boundary commission shall hold at least one public hearing
to which the common council shall be invited and at which interested residents of the city may
express their views on the subject. The order of the ward boundary commission shall be published
in the same manner provided for ordinances. The ordinance adopted by the common council or the
order of the ward boundary commission redetermining and establishing ward boundaries shall be
effective upon completion of publication.
JNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by:
to:
(ag
Request for Council Action
Charter Commission
Page 2
Subd. 6. (Unexpired term). All officers of the city whose appointment or election is
required by the provisions of this charter may serve out the term for which they are
appointed or elected notwithstanding a redetermination of ward boundaries that places
them in a ward other than the one from which he or she was elected or appointed.
Any such officer shall be considered the representative from the particular ward
from which he or she was elected or appointed, and shall continue to serve in that
capacity until the expiration of the term for which he or she was elected or
appointed.
SECTION 3.08. (Change of residence). Except as otherwise
provided within the charter, Aany elective or appointive officer changing his residence
from the city or ward for which he was elected or appointed under the provisions of this
charter, and any such officer who shall neglect or refuse to qualify within ten (10) days
after notice of his election or appointment or to enter upon the discharge of the duties of
his office within the designated time, shall be deemed to have vacated his office.
Under Minn. Stat. §410.12, 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 subject to the public's right to object by petition. The ordinance amending
the charter will be effective 90 days after publication if not objected to by petition.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the proposed ordinance upon affirmative vote of all
members present.
A f
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Q
DATE 11-6-00
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
6.q
ti cdl DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-46 to be known as Circle Drive Business
PREPARED BY:
Center Third
Brent Svenby,
November 2, 2000
Planning Department Review:
See Staff Report dated November 2, 2000
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat. Staff would recommend approval of the final plat with the following
conditions/modifications:
1. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, the private access easement providing access for Lots 2
and 4 shall be recorded and the book and page number of the recorded easement shall be shown on the
mylars to be recorded.
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Attachment:
Staff Report dated November 2, 2000.
Distribution:
1. CityAttorney
2. Planning Department File
3. Planning Department —GIS
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m.
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
5. Yaggy Colby Associates
on Monday, November 6, 2000, in the
COUNCIL ACTION: Mouonby: Second by: to:
LIJ
F _r.
ce
z IM
i
U'
sa p
� . . _ . :CFII .
W\ E�S nk
140.22
s `G
acvA-
pRME�t rw•'s
JWfST 01RCli p pO.W. 9 � gyp.. u'
U ayst[A CWNa'� 3g5.1a � gj E
gillm _
{}
a 'r'ror ti €ilt
7/ m dp 1^t13 0y. w''aa a aSl_` 7{rr
N — nnomn C J
NN
OINONP j
.-. N.anNN �gg�ie
n J�i7 N J�anu d3$£i1i
U
i
1
1 ;?2�'
TO: Rochester Common Council
��p■iii �iii��
A��;i►n,11l�a�n�I7
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
PLANNING
FROM:
Brent Svenby, Planner
GIS/ADDRESSING/
MAPPING
HOUSING
DATE:
November 2 2000
i
CO BUILDING CODE
WELUSEPTIC
RE:
Final Plat #00-46 to be known as Circle Drive Business Center
Third
Plannina Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Badger Development LLC
400 South Broadway
Suite #100 Riverside Building
Rochester, MN 55904
Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments: 1.
RPU Water Division
2.
RPU Operations Division
3.
Planning Department —Wetlands
4.
Planning Department —Addressing
5.
Rochester Public Works Department
6.
MnDOT
Report Attachments: 1.
Referral Comments (2 Letters)
2.
Location Map
3.
Copy of Final Plat
Plat Data:
5071285-8232
5071285-8232
5071285-6224
507/285-8213
5071285-8345
5071287-2275
Location of Property: The property is located along the west side of West
Circle Drive and along the south side of Valleyhigh
Road NW. The property is currently platted as Lots 2
and 3, Block 1 Circle Drive Business Center.
Zoning: This property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -
Industrial) district in the City of Rochester.
Proposed Development: This development consists of 3.23 acres of land to be
replatted into 4 lots for commercial and industrial
development.
kIFYa YN
�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Circle Drive Business Center Third
November 2, 2000
Streets: No public right-of-way is being dedicated with this
plat.
When development is proposed on Lot 2 and 4, Block
1 through Lot 1, Block 1 Circle Drive Business Center
to 261h Street NW, the development may require a
Traffic Impact Report (TIR). Depending on the
intensity of the proposed development, the results of
a TIR may require the closing of the access median
on 261h Street NW.
Drainage: A grading and drainage plan was approved when
Circle Drive Business Center was platted. A detailed
grading and drainage plan will need to be provided
and approved when development is proposed on the
property.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be
reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils.
There do not appear to be hydric soils within this plat.
Public Utilities: Public utilities will need to be extended to serve this
property. Additional utility easements and a water
system extension to provide adequate flows for fire
protection and water quality will be required to serve
this area.
Spillover Parking:
Parkland Dedication:
General Development Plan:
Preliminary Plat:
Spillover parking requirements will be reviewed at the
time development is proposed on the individual lots
through the Site Development Plan review.
There are no parkland dedication requirements with
commercial -industrial developments.
The General Development Plan for this property was
approved in March of 2000. The plat is generally
consistent with the approved GDP.
Since this is a re -plat of two existing lots and no right-of-way is being dedicated, a
preliminary plat is not necessary.
Final Plat.,
Planning Staff Review and Recommendation:
When development is �roposed on Lot 2 and 4, Block 1 through Lot 1, Block 1 Circle Drive
Business Center to 261 Street NW, the development may require a Traffic Impact Report
(TIR). Depending on the Intensity of the proposed development, the results of a TIR may
require the closing of the access median on 26th Street NW.
133
I3q Page 3
Circle Drive Business Center Third
November 2, 2000
In reviewing this plat, staff is concerned with the size of Lot 3. The small lot size may
result in problems accommodating a business structure with parking, meeting the
regulations of the Land Development Manual. The applicant should consider adding land
to this lot or combining it with Lot 1.
The Planning Staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, the private access easement
providing access for Lots 2 and 4 shall be recorded and the book and page number of
the recorded easement shall be shown on the mylars to be recorded.
ITOCHESTI k
Minnesota
10/30/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
13s" ;
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final
Plat #00-46 on the Circle Drive Business Center Third (Note: this property was
The following are Public Works comments on
the proposal:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property.
2. The proposed access to Lots 2 & 4, through Lot 1, Block 1, Circle Drive
Business Center to 26th St NW may require a Traffic Impact Report.
Charges and fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed
in the Development Agreement.
C:ITEMPTP#00-46.doc
p rw
we pledge, we deliver
October 24, 2000
Rochester-Ohnsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Final Plat #00-46 to be known as Circle Drive Business Center Third.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and our comments follow:
1. Neither preliminary nor final water main construction plans have been reviewed for this area.
2. Additional utility easements and a water system extension to provide adequate flows for fire
protection and water quality (possible looped system) will be required to serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly you"SL�
s,
064A
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Badger Development, LLC
Yaggy Colby Associates
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 197 /1�
DATE: 11-06-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
LIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
6 .6,
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase I Final Plat #0047 by Rick Hexum to be known as "1808
PREPARED IB
Properties". The Plat proposes to create three lots within the M-2 (Industrial) district. The
Theresa Fogarty,
property is located along the east side of 3`tl Avenue SE, at approximately 18" Street SE.
Planner
November 1, 2000
Planning Department Review:
The Developer has executed a Development Agreement with the City for this plat. The Council will act on the
Development Agreement on November 6, 2000. If the Development Agreement is approved on November 6, 2000, staff
would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications:
1. The Developer will be required to execute any necessary easements for the extension of off -site utilities
prior toaubmNWof the Final Plat
rererd:.3
Z Prior to recording the Final Plat, all recorded easements shall be indicated on the Final Plat.
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the Applicant)
1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications
2. Recording Statement
3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement
4. Recording Fee
5. Title Opinion
6. 1 Original Plat Mylar
7. 2 Mylar Copies of Plat
Attachments:
1. Staff report dated, November 1, 2000.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 6, 2000 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
7. McGhie & Betts, Inc.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
4.. W
n
la a
I�
I�
18
al
A
--T
W
i
i
o
H,
H
i
I
a
P+
z
L_
40•
� � S
e }r
a
i
� a
n �
w
S 3j! O
M
�
I
I
I
a
�
r�
a
1 '—
I P
r—�� -- — — — — — — ---------
Nut
"° gage J r s a e r a ar e T
v.>0OU'DOM
3 AAGARS P wr�u am P
alit�¢
131
,7 ST
l
,7 ,2 ST
FAA
10
TO: Rochester Common Council
ffrussffsae►W1
w�gvm�'�pn4j
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/2B5-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
MAPPING
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner HOUSING/HRA 507/265-8224
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
wELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
DATE: November 1, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275
RE: Type III, Phase I, Final Plat #00-47 by Rick Hexum to be known as "1808
Properties". The Plat proposes to create three lots within the M-2
(Industrial) district. The property is located along the east side of 3''
Avenue SE, at approximately 18' Street SE.
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners:
Rick Hexum
14671 West County Highway East
Stone Lake, WI 54876
Surveyors 1 Engineers:
McGhie & Betts
1648 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments:
1. Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division
2. Olmsted County Public Works
3- US Quest
Report Attachments:
1. Referral Comments (3)
2. Copy of Final Plat
3. Vicinity Map
Plat Data:
Location of Property: The property is located along the east side of 3`' Avenue SE,
approximately at 18" Street SE.
Existing Zoning: The property is zoned M-2 (Industrial) district on the City of
Rochester Zoning Map.
Proposed / Existing This development consists of 2.93 acres of land to be
Development: subdivided into 3 lots for industrial development.
Lot 1 has two existing office / warehouse buildings. One being
80' x 120' and the other 140' x120', both buildings meet the
requirements for landscaping and parking.
UAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
.m+.a.
Page 2 1 1'
Final Plat 00-47
"1808 Properties"
November 1, 2000
Proposed I Existing Lot 2 is proposing an 8,400 square foot building and is
Development (Continued): currently going through the site development plan review.
Lot 3 has two existing office / warehouse buildings.
Roadways: The plat does not dedicate right-of-way for any new public
roadways, but is dedicating 33' feet of right-of-way for a
portion of the existing 3f1 Avenue SE, which is classified as an
arterial roadway.
A Development Agreement has been executed for this plat.
The owner agrees to dedicate an additional 7 feet of area
across the north lot (approximately 75 feet) abutting 3rd
Avenue SE.
Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland indicator maps were
reviewed for the presence of wetlands. These maps do not
indicate the presence of wetlands or hydric soils on this site.
Public Utilities: The water main serving Lot 1 has been installed. Lot 3 is
currently developed and is being served off of 31 Avenue SE,
The service for Lot 2 is in the process of being reviewed for
approval.
A clarification will be needed prior to recording the final plat
indicating the existing 15' and 10' utility easement located
along the north and northeast of Lot 1. This easement meets
the request for an easement by Rochester Public Utilities and
US Quest.
Easements for the extension of off -site utilities must be
executed prior to submitting the Final Plat.
Pedestrian Facilities: A Development Agreement for this plat has been executed
with the City of Rochester. The owner has agreed to execute
a pedestrian facility agreement with the City of Rochester.
Drainage: The owner also agrees to participate in the City's Regional
Storm Water Management Plan for those areas that do not
drain to the approved permanent onsite stormwater ponds or
drain to building site -specific.
Spillover Parking: Parking for the development of each lot is determined at the
time of Site Plan Development Review.
Parkland Dedication: The property will not be used for residential development,
therefore there are no parkland dedication requirements.
Preliminary Plat:
A preliminary plat for this property was not required since no new public right-Df-way is being dedicated.
i
r
t j Page 3
(
1 Final Plat 00-47
"1808 Properties"
November 1, 2000
Staff Recommendation:
The developer has executed a Development Agreement with the City for this Plat. The Council will act on
the Development Agreement on November 6, 2000. If the Development Agreement is approved on
November 6, 2000, staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications:
1. The Developer will be required to execute any necessary easements for the extension of off
site utilities prior to submittal of the Final Plat.
2. Prior to recording the Final Plat all recorded easements shall be indicated on the Final Plat.
REMINDER TO APPLICANT:
• Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for
construction of the public infrastructure and utilities to serve this plat.
- m }_
we loledge, we deliver
October 25, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Final Plat #00-47 by Rick Hexum to be known as 1808 Properties.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and our comments follow:
1. The water main necessary to serve Lot 1 has been installed.
2. A public water main extension with related public utility easement dedication outside of this
plat area is required to adequately serve Lot 2; these plans have been reviewed, but not yet
approved.
3. Provisions for serving the unplatted area to the east of this plat have not been addressed.
4. Lot 3 is currently developed and is being served off 3`s Ave. SE.
Please contact us at 507-280-16M if you have questions.
15cl
Very truly yours,
0644A R
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Rick Hexum
Dave Morrill, McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
�W ROCHESTER
Minnesota
10/31/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4°1 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final
Plat #00-47 on the 1808 Properties Nexum property). The following are Public
Works comments on the proposal:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property.
Charges and fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed
in the Development Agreement, and prior City -Owner contract for this property.
C:ITEMPtFP#00-47.doc
ROLOSTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARONT
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100
ROCHESTER, MN 55904
FAX (507) 287-2275
Date: October 24, 2000
To: Agencies Indicated Below
From: Jennifer Garness, Planning Department
Subject: FinalPlat#00-47 by Rick Hexum to be known as "1808 Properties". The Plat
proposes to create three lots within the M-2 (Industrial) district. The property
is located along the east side of 3rd Ave. SE, at approximately 18`h St. SE.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the City Council on November 6, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4h Street SE. In order for the Planning Department to
prepare a thorough review of this application, we would appreciate receiving your comments by October 31,
2000, You may also appear at the meeting if you so desire. If you have comments, In addition to forwarding
them to the Planning Oepartmen4 please send a copy to:
Rick Hexum
14671 West County Hwy East
Stonalake, WI 54876
(715)865-5076
Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
City Agencies
1. Public Works
Richard Freese
2. Fire Department
Lyle Feisch
3. Crime Prevention
Robert Miller, Gov.Center
4. RPU Operations Division
Mike Engle
5. RPU Water Division
Donn Richardson
6. Park & Recreation
Denny Stotz
7. Building Safety
Ron Boose
6. City Attorney
Dave Goslee
9.
Downtown Dev. Dist.
Doug Knott
10.
City Administration
Tent' Spaeth
11.
Jerry Dooley
Neighbourhood Organizer
12.
Transportation Planner
13.
John HerfDnt, Planning Dept
McGhle & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
(507) 289.3919
Other Aaancies
17. School Board
Jeff Koppers
18. Peoples Natural Gas
Paul Curry
�L
7
20. Charier
Communications
21. MN DOT
4/46&fj Date Mau!
( � ?J� 22. Post Office
;t. -� Supervisor
23, MN DNR
1� a�1C Jim Cooper
�l 24. SWCD
25, Peoples Coop
Rick Wellik
County Agencies
14. Haaith Department
Rich Peter
15. Public Works
16. GIS Division
NOTE: CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY ENGINEER: PLEASE INDICATE IF THE
STREET IDENTIFICATION IS CORRECT IF THE ATTACHED IS A PLAT.
cq�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING I T? 1�
DATE: 11-6-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #00-09. Under the terms of the
PREPARED BY:
Orderly Annexation agreements between the City of Rochester and Marion
Mitzi A. Baker,
Township, the City has initiated to amend the City of Rochester zoning map to
Senior Planner
establish City zoning districts for properties in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18 and
21 Marion Township that are included in the Orderly Annexation agreements.
November 1, 2000
NOTE: The Commission recommended the Kevin Guy property (property "C") be rezoned to a Special District (SD). If the
Council agrees with this recommendation, an Ordinance will need to be prepared to establish a Special District for this
property, which would include the land use regulations and performance standards for that District. The Special District
Ordinance and re -zoning of this property would need to occur at a later date. If the Council wishes to rezone this property to
a SD, staff recommends that the property be zoned I -Interim temporarily and that the Council direct staff to prepare the SD
Ordinance language and proceed with rezoning the property to a Special District.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider this zoning district amendment on July 12, 2000.
Due to a large number of persons with questions related to the Water Quality Protection Program in attendance, the
Commission tabled the hearing to allow the City Administrators office to schedule an open house informational meeting for
the residence in this area. An open house informational meeting was held on August 12, 2000, with staff from City
Administration, Public Works and Planning in attendance to address questions. The Commission held a second public
1---2ng on this item on September 27, 2000 (see the attached minutes).
_ commission recommends approval of the zoning map, as prepared by staff, with the exception of the Kevin Guy
property. The Commission recommends that this property (property "C") be placed within a Special District. The
Commission also recommends that the four properties (A, B, C and D) that have been most intensely discussed have future
zone change application fees waived.
Ms. Schultze moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #00-09, with "Property A", "Property
B", and "Property D" be in the Interim zoning district as presented by staff, and that "Property C" be placed in a
Special District. The balance of the map should be adopted as proposed. Also, fees for properties "A", "B",
"C'I and "D" be waived for future rezoning applications. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion
carried 7-0.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated September 21, 2000 and July 7, 2000.
Council Action Needed:
The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision
on this zone change.
If the Council approves this zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare
an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law to amend the
Zoning for the property.
NCIL ACTION:
on By: Seconded By: Action:
�&
z.4fc 4� -�•d �n e
, n
nth►:^,
r
'•
�IIIIIIIII1111.1
.
..IIIIIIIIIaI�
1'
��
RAC"
.((..
���L■ICi1�Ai1111u�rII
.lo:
•
�
I',I�IIIIIIIIIIIIOI•.,
_
�tllT■1■IIIIi1G
04
i!
If'���..w
�11��
s f'c
u =,r
DATE: November 6, 2000
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker
RE: ITEM E-6 Marion Township Rezoning
'7II/IRID�IIA\6�
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN
55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/
507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC
507/285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
The City is planning to construct a water tower on property located within
this re -zoning. The property is located east of Harbor Heights Ct. SE,
within Section 8 of Marion Township.
In order to facilitate the development of the water tower, staff recommends
the portion of the property to be utilized for the tower be zoned R-1 (Mixed
Single Family). Please seethe attached maps and legal description.
Action by the City Council should include this revision.
CC,
� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
t
I$
I
xd+gsrgERnkd
q
x
.� .a+uoe"cw Roe
Note: I = Interim
R
Q
s
a
-
eP
W
01
z
F'
$%STU-
s
VRR
,.� NLlI6ECA=
F1EvtN 5F.
f
•
1.=�..
� `�1!viw�
.-'�dbwfiC.'4' x yji
mwwaE
&
Q
18 V1R
IT'
LRBE•
b m
Q
T< m
, 'If
If REE
a 4
E
17WW
:M nmsrsi
.R4
R1
Ar.
'Nag.
- °�88RBE
REtI'°cow ^.'tl
i
tueF!
i_
IRASY
al 'b NFiRBC
3
YI
MAR x
18R
]65i 5E
m
ASIS'
Proposed ❑ty Zming Map for Mnexetlan Free of Marian Twp.
Q
R w Rwtl lw
O
W dSlnda FFMMR-1
Law M W RM4nAel R-3
Mel.OM RWd.Y a-9
O
Mgh Csn4b RNbapW"
Rw ltad Loan .M 61
-
GenuFl Lawma'ew B4
R.MU Co—.iY 45
FW atl Lpnmacel IndiaHel N.1
®
Md caw Mz
Agb WAG
Mb.d Rr6 4y .MRO
-
RnnFJUnq Gwelapmnl RlG
Mpatl Sino*FaAYG lryh5e
Q w MVWopnaM Lore LOL
-
SpwW NWM so
Q
IM*nm le
RUi
W!"roll l
A
�r
xv.
SE
PLANNtNI —M�ffi �S,
SCALE 1" = 40' .
I
I
l
PROPERTY EXHIBIT N
300 TEMPORARY
EASEMENT —
SECTION LINE
PROPOSED %.
- ix fi I
PION /
I
M— F"
_._.......q55—..—. -
l � —
YJLC: I" s 40' rorc
ewe WHKS &�o.
wlf 08/01/oo CITY OF ROCHESTER
PmEcr m 5843 ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA uoi¢xi n.wces wo iwe
GaU rro.: ��� 5843E%02
NOU-06-2000 17:10 PANAFAX `:bU(2blb2lb r.VJli91
j(V>L f fi'>Nl1fl _ Wh7rrL A*W4—
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 106
North, Range 13 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota, described as follows: 4L
BEGINNING at the southeast comer of Lot 10, Block 4, Rose Harbor Second
Subdivision according to the plat thereof on file in the County Recorder's office,
Olmsted County, Minnesota; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 22 seconds
West (Note: All bearings are in relation to the east lane of said Rose Harbor
Second Subdivision, which is assumed) along the east line of said Rose Harbor
Second Subdivision a distance of 160.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59
minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 170.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00
minutes 22 seconds East a distance of 160.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 59
minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 170.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
TOTAL P.01
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
Note: I = interim
. E°t�-300�_,
)' E9 SE flas°RE aMR4 K.
INV
f NST
ffi.
W
pmK
y+!
NYMrEO
fOfR6i
!O f!fm SE
� �
WifmK
g
$
ftMmE
% i
,MBf
HmK
9
nmaz
W
p
I)
W
B
�eiMsrx_
.—
E
ns E
w W ti lRmg
K � nE SrK
!,v IfmSE
't)RO!a9'
}Im
pmK
wmaz
SrsE
°srK
a _
mm
a .r sT°E nm
wmaz a E
aslK
Prwasw City Zming Map Im MnwwUw Nes m Mmm TWp.
I R�,Y RmewuY
1�l Ml—d S6 FVM1yR1
Lw MYry PX.YNHM R-2
p M1lWw pmWy RWtlVtlY R-3
_� HIS p!!ull RNWMIY M
fl.sERltlC.mm.![IY 41
RwiJantlp tamoa[tl 65
_ A9..RCwnmwaAlMM.fM ALt
- M101i N2
_ MpaERWMtpmart MRO
FIWmtl N's 0..I w0
® RbW 51rRi. FSNFyOwIHR-Se
CmbeI M.YMn.M Cy.Cm
-.q. LIRMG50
IR.!a!�IA
R1.
CMRXo. G ft
M.EK.EWFRIE
� W
q �
N
E
J
30S SE
9/22/00
A S15E
n� 't
WNNUTB
tLft' ROCHESTER
d.I-UII:aII'Ulflit fl
October 30, 2000
Gerald Campbell
Marion Township Board Supervisor
1501 - 50th Avenue SE
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
RE: Petition from Welch Court and 33rd Street SE
Dear Jerry:
U
GARY K NEUMANN
Assistant City Administrator
City Administrator's Office
201 4th Street SE, Room 266
Rochester, MN 55904-3781
(507)285-8082
FAX #(507)287-7979
You recently presented me with a petition from some residents of Welch Court and 33rd
Street SE in which there is a request to be exempted from the orderly annexation
agreement. We discussed this briefly on the day that you stopped in City Hall. I want to
provide you with some information on this matter.
The residents of this subdivision are the most southeasterly area within the Orderly
Annexation Agreement area. There is also some apparent confusion and/or concern
regarding the Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) by these residents.
Before any decision is made to either undertake a project in this subdivision or to
exempt it from the Orderly Annexation Agreement area, it is very important to make
certain that the residents have the most accurate and correct information, particularly
regarding the Water Quality Protection Program. The City had received more petitions
in favor of a WQPP than the current petition would indicate. Therefore, there is a need
for some additional communication and discussions with these residents to determine
the level of support or lack of support for a future WQPP project. The City staff would
suggest the following approach:
1. We will create an entirely separate project area for the Welch Court and 33rd Street
SE area. By separating the Welch Court and 33rd Street SE petition area from the
remainder of Thomas Subdivision, we will be able to get more accurate information
on the percent of homes on Welch Court and 33rd Street SE that support or oppose
a Water Quality Protection Project. This would allow any potential project on these
streets to rise or fall on its own merits without being wrapped into an overall project
with the Thomas Court and 32nd Street SE area to the north.
(5)
October 30, 2000
Page 2
2. We will schedule another informational meeting on the Water Quality Protection
Program just for the Welch Court and 33`d Street SE property -owners. This would
allow the Public Works staff to address their specific concerns so that they have the
most complete and accurate information possible.
3. Following the informational meeting, a subsequent public hearin�q on a Water Quality
Protection Program Project specifically for Welch Court and 33` Street SE would be
scheduled before the City Council. Notice would be provided to the property -owners
and the Township Board.
4. At the completion of the public hearing at which the Council can obtain the views of
the affected property -owners and the Township Board, the Council could decide
whether or not to exempt the area from the Orderly Annexation Agreement (if the
Township Board also agrees) or whether there is strong and sufficient support to
undertake a Water Quality Protection Program Project on these streets.
The Public Works Department has indicated that the informational meeting and the
public hearing could be scheduled for early in 2001. It will be unable to be held earlier
due to the current heavy staff workload on the WQPP.
This process would allow these property -owners to have a chance to have the best
information possible and would provide them with an opportunity to have their concerns
heard. At present we have heard from some property -owners on these two streets that
they did not understand or obtain accurate information on the WQPP initially and there
are likely to be others that feel that they do not have accurate information on which to
base a decision at this time.
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. The City Council will be
provided with a copy of the petition from these property -owners so that they will be
aware of their concerns.
Sincerely,
Gary =nn
Assistant City Administrator
c: Marion Township Board Members
Mayor and City Council
Stevan E. Kvenvold
Richard Freese
Jim Loehr
Polly Owens, 3315 42"d Avenue SE
•
G7I ,
September 27, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson,
We are property owners living in what has been termed the 'Thomas
Subdivision Area' under Orderly Annexation Agreement #5 with Marion
Township. We are concerned about the potential city sewer, establishment of
city zoning and annexation of our property under the above noted Orderly
Annexation Agreement.
Property owners in Whynaughts, Marvale, Nelsons, Christopher Court
and Samelians areas had the opportunity to express their opinions about the
sewer project at public hearings with the City Council earlier this year. As of
today we have not had an opportunity for participation in a public hearing to
consider the local improvement project for sanitary sewer to our area. We would
strongly oppose this project if we had opportunity to speak.
We feel that the commission should not approve Zoning District
Amendment #00-90 for the 'Thomas Subdivision Area' affected by Orderly
Annexation Agreement 5, which includes our property, because there has not
been a public hearing for our area yet. Under the United States Constitution
Amendment 13 we have the right to due process and equal protection under the
law. Without the opportunity for public hearing we feel that right has been
violated. We should be treated the same as the property owners in the other
areas and be given a public hearing to consider the sewer project before having
the city zoning map extended to our area. All property owners affected under
the Orderly Annexation Agreements should be treated equally.
Thank you for considering our request.
Name
Si nature
Address
12
f
i l e
lS" 17 6)A( l
2-1 i
�,i
Name
6
Signature _
Address
c
3a3-7
a nok- (Sk.
ak j;
YOb u 36 t' S� S
2�
a4:/
yeay 33 sT s
✓1'4'f K("Kkqoi
&
E.�
September 13, 2000
City of Rochester
Rochester City Council
To Whom It May Concern,
The Supervisors of Marion Township would like to go on record in support of the. City
of Rochester honoring the zoning already in place for the residents along Marion Road
who are involved in the orderly annexation agreement.
Thank you for your consideration of leaving the zoning as is.
Sincerely,
Tom O'Neill, Chairman
Roger Rjerke, Supervisor
Gerald Campbell, Supervisor
to • •
DATE: September 21, 2000
TO: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
RE: Zoning District Amendment #00-09.
O�II ���ryi
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING _DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMIMSTRATIOW 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC 507/285.8345
FAX 5071287-2275
On July 12, 2000 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider
establishing City Zoning Districts on certain properties within Marion Township.
At the public hearing, a number of individuals expressed interest in information related to the City
sewer and water extension projects. As a result, the Planning Commission tabled the zone
change to a date uncertain to allow City Administration to organize and hold an informational
meeting.
The City hosted an open house informational meeting on August 16, 2000. There was a
relatively large turnout at the meeting and staff from City Public Works, City Administration and
Planning were available to provide additional information and address questions.
At the July 12, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission requested
that the Planning Department provide additional information for those areas where a property
owner is known to object to the zoning district(s) recommended by staff. A summary of those
areas is enclosed. The zoning district recommended for some of those properties has been
modified, for others staff has outline alternatives for consideration if the Commission and Council
do not wish to proceed with staffs recommendation.
r
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
0 • l5�.
Areas on Proposed Zoning Map Where Owner Objects to Recommendation
The attached map identifies four locations where the property owner objects to the
recommendation by the Planning Department to zone the property to either the R-1 (Mixed Single
Family) district or I — Interim district. A more detailed explanation of each is provided.
Property "A": Ingalls/Old Chick Hatchery
This property is located between Marion Road and Pinewood Road, along the west side of 301"
Ave. SE. Historically, this was the site of a chick hatchery (agricultural use). In 1994 the current
owners petitioned the County to rezone the property from the A-4 (Agricultural -Urban Expansion
District) to the HC (Highway Commercial District) to allow the property to be used for a flea
market. Since this property is located within the floodway, it does not abut a roadway designed to
handle large volumes of commercial traffic and the petition was inconsistent with the Land Use
Plan designation for the property, staff recommended denial of the zone change. The County
Planning Advisory Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial. In February 1994, the County
Board approved the zone change to HC (5-2 vote).
Propertv "B": D. Skfervem
This property is a long narrow parcel located half way between 30M Ave. SE and Pearl Ct. SE
along the south side of Marion Road. Prior to July 11, 2000 this property was zoned RA (Rural
Residential) in the County. In May of this year the property owner petitioned the County to
amend the Land Use Plan designation for this property from "Low Density Residential" to
"Industrial" and to rezone the property from RA to a Special District with an Industrial designation
Staff recommended denial of this zone change due to the site access, the fact that part of the
property is located within the 100-year Flood Fringe and the southern % is located within the
Floodway, exterior storage of material within the flood plain raised concerns, the property is
planned for to be served by Rochester municipal services and annexed into the City of Rochester
in the future, and the property is not located in a clustered industrial area. The Olmsted County
Planning Advisory Commission held a hearing on this request on June 15, 2000 and considered
testimony and recommended denial of the request 6-0.
On July 11, 2000, the Olmsted County Board approved the applicant's petitions 4-3.
Property "C": K. GuV
This property is located along the south side of Marion Road, just west of Pearl Ct. SE. This
property is currently zoned RC (Recreational Commercial) in the County and includes both
outdoor and indoor recreational uses. The current property owners petitioned the County in 1993
to rezone the property from the RA (Rural Residential) district to the RC (Recreational
Commercial) district. Staff expressed concern that certain uses within the RC district may be
objectionable or disruptive to the residences in the immediate vicinity but that any use within the
district would require conditional use permit approval prior to being established on the property
and that conditions may be imposed to mitigate potential adverse affects on adjacent residences.
Other criteria for rezoning the property to the RC district could be met, the Townboard did not
object to the rezoning and property owners in the area signed a petition supporting the applicants
intention to "provide recreational activities for families". The Planning Advisory Commission
recommended approval 5-0. The County Board approved the zone change 7-0.
Use of this property for recreational purposes required a conditional use permit from the County.
Staff had originally recommended the R-1 district for this property since the owners could petition
for a Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit for any modification or expansion of the
existing use, which would be similar to obtaining conditional use permit approval in the County.
Property "D": Kingsley
This property is located along the south side of 29th St. SE east of Marion Road. The eastern
portion of this property is developed with an automotive repair shop.
It appears as though this property has been zoned HC (Highway Commercial) in the County for a
long time, though only the eastern % (approx.) is developed. Staff recommends that the
developed portion of this property be zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -industrial), as reflected on
the proposed zoning map. A 2.01 acre part of this land was rezoned in 1997 to allow for a single
family home to be built. Staff recommends that this part of the property be zoned R-1 in the City
as well. The western portion of this property undeveloped, however, and the recommendation is
to zone that portion of the property I -Interim. In the recent weeks, the property owner obtained a
permit for an auto sales lot for this part of the property.
ALTERNATIVES:
Staff recognizes that the Commission and Council may want to entertain alternatives for zoning
these properties. The Planning Department recommends the first alternative.
1. One alternative is to zone each of the areas (A, B, C and D) to the I -Interim District. This
would permit the existing uses to continue, as is, without further modification or expansion. In
order to modify or expand the uses, a permanent zoning district would need to be
established. As part of this process neighboring properties would receive notice of public
hearings at which the rezoning would be considered. The Planning Department recommends
I -Interim zoning for these four areas.
2. A second alternative is to zone each of these properties M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial).
Staff had discussed the properties lying east of 301h Ave. SE to Pearl Ct. SE and considered
M-1 zoning for that whole area. Since there are several single family dwellings within the
area, staff concluded it would be a lesser evil limit the M-1 district to parcels "B" and "C". The
property located at the southeast corner of the 301h Ave. SE and Marion Road intersection is
the location of Hathaway Tree Service. The recommendation for this property is M-1, as
reflected on the comprehensive map.
3. Another alternative is to leave the County zoning on these properties (A, B, C, and D)
temporarily and initiate a process to re -zone them to a SD — Special District. This would
require additional staff time to prepare the SD Ordinance and regulations, but should not
delay rezoning the remaining areas included in Zone Change #00-09. The SD could be
designed to include uses very similar to those already existing on the properties or permitted
within the existing County zoning districts. An advantage of this alternative is the ability to
design regulations for non-residential uses in locations where the intensity of uses and
compatibility are of concern.
*If the Planning Commission recommends zoning these properties something other then I -Interim
district, the Commission may want to direct the Planning Department to provide additional notices
to owners of property within 500' of the areas so that the neighboring individuals are informed.
0 0 (5*7/-
Areas on Zoning Map Changed from July 12, 2000
Sunnydale: Three parcels in Sunnydale Subdivision (Located south of CR 9 and east of CR 109)
were thought to have approval in the County for commercial uses. Staff had originally
recommended a B-5, Residential Commercial, zoning district for those lots. Since that time, we
have been able to confirm that those lots have been developed with single family homes. Staff
recommends now that those lots be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family), consistent with the
adjoining properties. The proposed map has been modified to reflect this recommendation.
Single Family Dwelling along Eastwood Road, east of Marion Road: Although there were not
concerns expressed by the property owner, staff discussed this property and concluded that
instead of an I — Interim Zoning District, this property should be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family).
Old Oak Grove Motel: This property is located west of Bobs Manufactured Home Park along the
south side of Marion Road, across from 241h Ave. SE. This property had historically been used
for recreational rental cabins and is now used for rental housing year round. Staff suggests that
instead of the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district, this property should be zoned RAX (Mixed
Single Family Extra). The proposed map has been modified to reflect this recommendation.
Kingsley Single Family Lot: In 1997 a 2.01 acre parcel located south of 29th St. SE was re -zoned
to R-1 (Low Density Residential) in the County. This was not reflected on the previous map. This
parcel is now proposed to be R-1 (Mixed Single Family) in the City. A single family dwelling has
been constructed on the property.
bmft D cbuwy-gARR'oN /4il
Section 8.04 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (HC): TwwNs * s' V
This district is intended to provide suitable locations for uses oriented to serving the
public and uses requiring large areas of highway frontages oriented closely to urban
areas and major transportation routes within the Comprehensive Plan's Urban
Service Area. Such development to be developed at standards that will not impair
the traffic -carrying capabilities of abutting roads and highways; not result in strip
commercial development, and to separate from residential areas and in certain
cases from each other, certain commercial uses which have been determined to
contribute to a "skid row" or blighting development pattern in adjacent areas.
A. Permitted Uses:
A. Retail Trade:
1. Apparel and accessory stores.
2. Building materials and hardware stores.
3. Furniture, home fumishing, antique and appliance stores.
4. Gasoline service stations and car washes.
5. Lawn and garden supply stores and nurseries.
6. Marine, motor vehicle and mobile home dealers and supply stores.
7. Restaurants and other eating establishments not serving alcoholic
beverages.
8. Auction bams or sales facilities.
9. Other retail stores and businesses.
B. Services:
1. Business services, including advertising agencies, cleaning and
maintenance services, and similar uses.
2. Educational facilities.
3. Government buildings.
4. Attorney, finance, insurance, real estate, engineering and other office
uses.
5. Doctor, Dentist, veterinarian, and other health care facilities.
6. Motor vehicle, body shops, welding and other repair services.
7. Personal services, including barber shops, beauty shops, reducing
salons, photographic shop, laundry, dry cleaners, funeral services and
other similar uses; except saunas, massage parlors and similar uses.
8. Moving and storage uses.
Article Vlll — Commercial, Industrial, Medical Institutional ans Special Districts Page 77
July 19, 1999
9. Motels and hotels. 114 COuN1
10. Home improvement trades, including electricians, plumbers, building
contractor shops and services, and other similar uses.
11. Telecommunication towers and transmitters including radio, television,
and commercial wireless telecommunications.
12. Entertainment, Adult: Adult bookstores, adult motion picture theaters,
adult mini -motion picture theaters, adult massage parlors, adult saunas,
adult companionship establishments, adult health clubs, adult cabarets,
adult novelty businesses, adult motion picture arcades, adult modeling
studios, adult hotel or motel, adult body painting studios, and other adult
establishments, located at least 1000 feet from:
a. any existing residential zoning district
b. any areas designated for future residential development on any
Urban Services Area Land Use Plan
c. any church, school, or youth facility
d, any other adult establishment;
For the purposes of this Section this distance shall be a horizontal
measurement from the nearest existing residential district boundary,
church, school, youth facility or another establishment to the nearest
point of the proposed adult establishment.
C. One dwelling unit, when included as an integral part of the principal building
or one mobile home occupied by the owner or his employee.
D. Recreational uses including athletic clubs, tennis or racquet ball clubs,
bowling alleys, dance halls, theaters, roller or ice skating rinks, golf driving
ranges, and other similar uses.
E. Storage and wholesale trade.
F. Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to any of the above
permitted uses when located upon the same property.
B. Conditional Use: (See Section 4.02, Conditional Use.)
1. Any permitted retail or service use over ten thousand (10,000) square feet of
floor area.
' 2. Amusement Parks and race track services.
3. Taverns and other facilities serving alcoholic beverages.
4. Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to any of the above
conditional uses when located upon the same property.
' C. General District Regulations:
Article Vlll — Commercial, Industrial, Medical Institutional ans Special Districts Page 78
1 July 19,1999
A. Height Regulations: No building or structure shall exceed thirty-five (35)
feet in height; provided; however, such height may be increased one (1) foot
for each two (2) feet by which the building is set back in excess of the
required side and rear yard setback regulations.
B. Front Yard Regulations:
1. A minimum front yard depth of not less than forty-five (45) feet shall be
provided.
C. Side Yard Regulations:
1. A minimum side street yard width of not less than forty-five (45) feet
shall be provided.
2. A minimum interior yard width of not less than twenty-five (25) feet shall
be provided.
D. Rear Yard Regulations:
1. A minimum rear yard depth of not less than twenty-five (25) feet shall be
provided.
E. Lot Area Regulations:
1. Each lot or parcel shall have an area of not less than two (2) acres,
except when additional lot area may be required by the Olmsted County
Health Department to meet Board of Health Regulations.
2. When a new lot is proposed to be served by a public or other
centralized sewage treatment system and is located within an area
identified as Urban Service Area in the General Land Use Plan, the
minimum lot area shall be determined by a special district established
under the provisions of Section 8.10 in accordance with the standards in
the General Land Use Plan for interim development.
3. When a new lot is proposed to be served by a public or other
centralized sewage treatment system and is located within an area
identified as Suburban Development Area in the General Land Use
Plan, the minimum lot area shall be determined by a special district
established under the provisions of Section 8.10 in accordance with the
standards in the General Land Use Plan for suburban development.
F. Lot Width Regulations:
1. Each lot shall have a minimum width of two hundred (200) feet at the
front building line.
2. A lot serviced by a public or other centralized sewage collection and
treatment system shall have a minimum lot width of sixty (60) feet at the
front building line.
0
11
F
u
I
1
I
I
I
Article Vill — Commercial, Industrial, rvledical Institutional ans Special Districts Page 79
July 19, 1999
(Dq 0
G. Lot Coverage Regulations: Not more than fifty 0%) percent of the lot
shall be occupied by buildings or structures. In the Shoreland District, there
_f
shall be not more than thirty (30%) percent allowable lot coverage. ' N
H. Off -Street Parking Regulations: (See Section 10.04.)
I. Bufferyard Regulations: (See Section 10.08.)
Article vlll — Commerclal, Industrial, Medical institutional ans Special Districts Page 80
July 19, 1999
• • Ids.
A--1 w2nmcr
.,
j:+•
C
�5ey
O
o
`'
O
oa
d W
�c
#i�s�--.
w d
a
mm
s
L
N r
d
O
C V
ui
L_
rci
C
W
•� O p
We
`uch
i
Q'c
a. c o
d d �'ME ^:i:
LL
V _
L a._
L
LL S 7:T.il.':
0 0 9f.�y"�'.
W �
a c
p
c o 3
N fll yl i7 j ti�'F.
�rtr, i...
V
N
00 W.N..
LL} N LL
I
�> N
9i0{s����W"
N
pL
d
dC
fn
x
R.0
m. }py,'.ra'
c
a)W
amo
W C N
W
C Q' E
O d 0 dr W W?s
LL
C
OV
N
V1
IL
W C "W
C
E
V s
dEEE
C
p
T'ac
d
N N
tm o
Oa
d C C C �� V3
C
w- O' C
L=
C
mii
H
d 4 W
co
m E 3
J �
o
Z fa
O
a
_
1 N m
N<a
IT
L Cc
cs
':
C
0
N a
W W
c
q
C
%i '_ 0.
d
y�
r
C
O
o
d
O v
oLL?
2
S
e
p
0
c
C
o
C
J
N
r
0.5
z
c m
o
=
0) '`tg
c
m
C m
c
m
O Ol
=
m
d
E D
c
z
.d c
a
N
W
O
O
u
F
[
O N
N
•O
E
o S
E
E
c°
E
E
d9
E
E;
u
E
E
m
9�
c
'Sa
e
E
lw CITY o F
?NO cH%sT U R,
rn
rn
M
ram.•
N_
O
rn
c
.0
N
Q
C
.y
Q
y
7
O
t� � C � NpW NC NF 2���a yW Nyyj
m Z Y. �e u�auy uw "qq g<°zoZY'
°zu`�ac$ W
iw.r�i3 w5
W6 7 °- W6WW cz O° 2
2LL«�w<�-a,_�ZLL F"2ri
=iXZ Xxm»MD=Km o4 n`0o om
p W� �X ���Fi56 RN Wpm W�f(m Kd� Wg<�Wy1N NyN
@ pF � �i �Kyy KSNKU'ZW a�°�<066W Wa• N_W KW SW
O
��- In ry y w
c t
� as
m gx x o
F _ga o o
3 m' b 93`x^. fin
_cc_ a
m fie. a
c
� m J �MM a QQ (p•1 ^u ry INl
rd i i
y
L a U U U o U u o UU° o o u
cCD E o @ tl 3
•T 6 q�q 6
co
0
N Q
� m 5
e S
Q 6ca
'.
m
N d Cgg m w4�
G � 0 c pAn
auj $ g
U7 (D W ga
0.0 9 - = - - - IT- -
2 •� W wg
L LL
y W 9
W C = m
D. co > s.. a.
ui
Q ro m a 11119
all $
y
wo
W m c y S ¢o � N � ••.
N
C7
N
A- 1
.a c rTN)
/
AL
AM
N
N
7
O
m
C
�T
a
m
Vl
m
C
ca
Vl
U
C
W
N
d
a
a
m
d
� N
� t
a=
H 41
N
Va
Z^
� L
Q r
Lu
a U)
Lu
N w
i
a
cl
m
9
Z i
�s
is
nbq �-
¢
SZWM
LLLLpaOUoC�Sa.TdO+
SS
LLVrci1LL�a
r
O
OpN
WaW a YYII
LL2 S~x J0~2N
pWwNwWN
pQ�up�OLLUtd wNW2°
�JrWao
ZNSW
�Jp3rWapWyjNi
2p»2p
Z2
Z
.Om+�m.
'
OR�Y<a��
Ux
a
W
NpNu<NZON
W2
'�e
v
W
LLs
NrE WCU[
iw
ai
M
a
Q w
<=NWQa
LL eyy
D
i
pig
6
6p5rp5WQ
�WOm
nd
Vw1W
6
a�a pU_6UQppt
S Zd
Na 1W
a1�p
NQ
N
Na
O
m
O
>>
S>
>
5
>>
xxW
5
L
,i
r
1...
x
SS
c
wN
n€p'aSN
b
U
q
W
W
W
W
W
W W
� 9
12
r
J
1NfLLi
kyQs
gx+
(
oaR
e0
it
r
m m
fr
c
c
,
�
i
E
p
m-
5 R
o v
Wry
m
N
N m
m
m
m
N
N
m N
=
m
N
J
9
m N
Eg
gg
g
u
a o
o
o
m
u
o
u u
u u
m
u
A
+K
o
�y m
p
cc
00
O
D
W
W
cc
W W
p
0
p n
W
ul
<0
o
e
�=
'2 a
0
0 m
c :Fm
a Min
8
m
n
a
m
w 5
Z V p
$
zJ
Pt
6
K
W
A
Q Z-
yx
iG
�jg
M-\ 161
P,
r
N
ww
ao
p
N
7
. O
m
C
O.
a
(O
U)
lO
C
NN
C
lG
mn
d
d
Q N
.T7.
0
Q C
N
N�
uj
m
Q
d w
a-0
Q :fl
W
H C
N W
e� d
� H
v
M
N
0
Idw
r�
Z
�¢¢
9
[
8
a
O
J.j
WdWK
�NOWU
N W
S <N< (J
d~
a7
Z�
NW
�K
<
2]
wy
C.�
05
.
vaS
AWZ3
1SrczU'
oW
}OOOLLyagONU
W>es..
�z �Oa
O �NS
F
LL
1
V
Y7
pW
b
g
b'Y�g
N
��OO
W
Od'020�yLL
WZZ6
r+OW
Wd�_
>COu y86»WWF
OLL
NfOl� �6<YW
SF
FEU
dWd<
lUU��
`}2 LL_IOp
W02L
d
L
Cy6
LL
�
NQ
yRw
WVIi
NFfa
F<?Cd�LL
UV6w
am
t
�w
yX
C
6Q
6
N
O
iSYY^QFQRI
z
W
IY
^a
O
0
rn
2 b
i
.y
a
Mg
12
W
W
W
W
_
d
d
m a
ti?
$gz
a
x
o
$
J
Og
lei
CA
aY
jig
$CR
O �
� 5
�
WWW666 O
C
U i
JJJ9999
3
W
_a
f
0
0
n 8
d
mS
Q
O G
O
O
0
O O
O
p
3$
+u
Js
Y,
L
� 3�FLLO�FLLO
� � WLLN
gay1�ryV
GO
q $
iYYi'
c :6m
N
g
—
^
m
U
~
g
w
Y o
ww73
n
y
E
Fy■ti
a
s
gg
d=
�l jsj!
v4y7
g
Yg
d
YLFI'
Y9 a=Nui
3
Co
L12
*
U c
N
i
A-� /
�N Crr
d
N
7
O
C
n
a
N
U
.D
C
ca
U
C
ca
O_
a
m
d
O N
Q •G
F �
UJ
U�
Z
� r
Q�
W
a
H �
h
�F
N
l+l
al
Ak
wOL
n
wt
zg
�w
zs
S
5
za
UNUON
9
�>
V
N�
o
aw
oF�F,
�10y
JJ
6
76{mwG
�W
�w
a
W<U<'
yWO
WU'
.J
N
aNO
N
N
O
�zrcaw
:
C
"[
tloC
6N
3N
n
W
LL
LL
W
nFE'(�3}�jW
NNtaN
w
YI
N ❑
d N
a
o—iDw
m 'y
Rio4-mi
O195ua!
iir
i
��.
6
Y�LI�1.04
r
=�pOO
@
O c
N
O d
Z..J
m Ro Hz
�ZLLNo.2
J
♦..
m�
rt.
%.1
dGam
[Y,p
'9ry
N
N
Z
m
3BF2ws
`o E
s,
<N
¢m
yig
�o�7IZ
o v
c
we
s
a
z
N
E o
`�'
n
HHUHNLLKV
S"d
Oww
112
0
0
c
ZP
ggo
0w
G
�ffi
L—
SO
m
G �ptm
p
c L
S
9
e1
a
N
go
ul
uwj m
g
wLd
C
Y
81-'j
�s
9;:
a $
ggUl
C
a z�
N
Y. i�
7
g$
gg
WL j ®
O m
c�i y7v�i
f4L
� 2
(o
m
W
1070 0
DATE: July 7, 2000
TO: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
h�"•ti,,�yy`
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
A DMI N IS7RATIOIVI
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSINGf
5071285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGIHRA
5071285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC
5071285-8345
FAX
5071287-2275
RE: Zoning District Amendment #00-09. Under the terms of the Orderly
Annexation agreements between the City of Rochester and Marion
Township, the City has initiated to amend the City of Rochester
zoning map to establish City zoning districts for properties in
Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17,18 and 21 Marion Township that are
included in the Orderly Annexation agreements.
Background:
In December 1998 the City Council adopted the Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP). This
program is designed to eliminate private septic and drainfield systems as well as private water
systems by subsidizing the cost for extending and hooking up municipal sewer and water
services to existing developed properties.
Orderly Annexation agreements between the City and Marion Township were a necessary
component to implementing the WQPP, within Marion Township. Five (5) Orderly Annexation
agreements have been executed for properties within Sections 5-8, 16-18 and 21 Marion
Township at this time. A section within the agreements provides the City with the authority to
extend its municipal planning and land use controls to the areas within the Orderly Annexation
agreements.
The City Council and County Board have agreed that it in the best interest for the City to extend
land use and zoning controls to those areas with in Marion Township that are covered by the
Orderly Annexation agreements.
Proposed Zoning for Consideration:
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan shows most of this area as being designated
for "low density residential' types of uses with a few properties shown for "commercial' and
"industrial" types of uses. Please see the attached Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan
map.
�6 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
0 0 (11
Attached is a proposed Zoning Map to establish City Zoning Districts for the areas within Marion
Township that are included in Orderly Annexation agreements. The Planning Department is
primarily recommending zoning districts that are similar to the County zoning districts which
currently apply to those properties. There are, however, a few properties that are recommended
for the I — Interim Zoning District. There are some large parcels that are primarily undeveloped
which could be proposed for different zoning districts within the appropriate land use categories.
For example, within the "low density residential" land use category a developer could propose R-
1 (Mixed Single Family), R-IX (Mixed Single Family Extra) or R-2 (Low Density Residential)
zoning. At the time a development is proposed, zoning would also need to be established for
those properties zoned I — Interim. A few areas shown for I — Interim zoning, however, include
parcels that have been developed in conflict with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan or would not be appropriately zoned for commercial or industrial uses within the City at this
time.
Zoning district amendments from the I — Interim district to a permanent district would require a
General Development Plan to be filed concurrent with a zone change request. This provides
neighbors, the Commission, Council and staff with the opportunity to review proposed
development patters, land use, intensity and density to determine the appropriateness of a
proposed zoning district and also provides the opportunity for making land use and development
decisions that promote orderly growth.
Procedure and Criteria:
The amendment to the Rochester Zoning Map, to establish City zoning districts for areas within
Marion Township that are included in the Orderly Annexation agreement areas, is considered a
comprehensive amendment to the Official Zoning Map for the City of Rochester.
Although the properties included within this amendment are not officially annexed into the City at
this time, the Rochester City land use and zoning controls are being extended into these areas as
provided within the Orderly Annexation agreements and also within Minnesota Statutes Sections
414.0325, Subd. 5, 462.357, Subd. 1 and 462.358, Subd. 1.
Criteria and Suggested Findings
Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the
Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application
requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria:
1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by
formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria:
a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan;
b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative
error;
c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan,
the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive
Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range
Transportation Plan; or
d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public
interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area.
(%L • 0
Finding: The area is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to extend
the City planning and land use controls. This area includes land that will be annexed into
the City of Rochester. Through the Water Quality Protection Program, municipal services
are being extended to serve properties; eliminate individual septic systems, drain fields and
private water systems; protect water quality and the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The extension of City Land Use and Zoning controls to these areas will
promote orderly development consistent with City standards, which would apply to this
area once annexed to the City and consistent with the goals and policies of the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map
filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following
criteria:
a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate
on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the
neighborhood; and
Finding: The permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning districts will be
appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties. Several
areas are proposed to be zoned I -Interim District which will require zoning
amendments to be considered in the future in order to establish permanent zoning
districts for those areas. Those areas will be re-evaluated at the time petitions are fled
to determine the appropriateness of zoning districts proposed by the property owner(s)
or developer(s). It is in the best interest of the public and consistent with the Statement
and Purpose of City of Rochester, Minnesota found in Section 60.111 to zone those
areas I — Interim District.
b) the proposed amendment does not involve 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).
Finding: The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning.
1]
4 Ila
Excerpts from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual
60.329 1 Interim Zone: This district is intended to provide a zoning designation on the
official Zoning Map for the City of Rochester that will assist in the notifying the
public that the future zoning of selected, undeveloped land will be subject to
change at some time in the future. The Interim Zone provides the owner of the
property the time needed to analyze and organize an official request for
permanent zoning district boundaries according to the procedural requirements
of Section 60.330. The Interim Zone district may be established by the City on
undeveloped property at the time of annexation at the request of the property
owner. The City will adopt an Interim Zone on property if it is determined that it
would be in the best interest of the public and consistent with the Statement
and Purpose of City of Rochester, Minnesota found in Section 60.111. The
Common Council will review all Interim Zone districts at the same time it
reviews urban rural service districts. Upon petition by the landowner, a public
hearing will be held pursuant to section 60.330 et. sea., and the Common
Council will establish a zoning classification other than I for the property.
On land in the Interim Zone, no building or structure shall be erected, enlarged
or moved and no change in the use of land or existing buildings or structures
shall be made.
60.111 statement of Purpose: In order to protect the public health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the community, this ordinance is adopted by the City
Council for the purposes identified in Chapter 462 of the Statutes of the State of
Minnesota which relate to Municipal Planning (in particular, paragraphs 462.351
through 462.365), for the purpose of implementing the policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan of Rochester, to encourage innovation in land
development by removing regulatory barriers to the consideration of new or
unique ideas which are consistent with the purposes and policies referenced,
and to create a system of land use regulation that is intent on finding equitable
solutions to the land use conflicts which routinely arise as development occurs,
so as to provide or the orderly development of land within Rochester and to
conserve the value of land and buildings.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE
CITY
ROCHESTER URBAN SERVICE AREA
1979
LEGEND
G=
LOY: ODDITY RESIDENT:&
WE]IUfl OENSI'(Y IESiXiJT'.%L
i
H19H C£N97Y RESIDENTIAL -
pmmmm
COMM"R 4L
MMM
MEDIRL
15
R!AL
Pi 6'
PU9L C
y'$
REC .11.1L AREA 3i CPEiJ SFA:Z
=�
pr.O.VE AREA
•
Hia 5'!C AHi:A '
(� Page 3 • •
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 12, 2000
Mr. Bilderback st d that, when there is a business in the neighborhood d they are
expanding, they sho talk with the neighborhood associations. He st that they are not
saying that they are op sed to the request. They would just like to together with them and
discuss the issue.
Mr. Dennis Etbauer, Ass\are
rator for Olmsted Medi Center, addressed the
Commission. He stated e happy to meet wit a neighborhood association. He
explained that the reasoing the parking lot.' ecause they need to comply with
the zoning requirements
Mr. Suk asked if Mr. Etbauer would be wilkg to colililiue the meeting in two weeks
Mr. Etbauer responded yes. He asked if it
requirements.
Ms. Baker responded that it could be
okay with staff to delay the parking lot
to tXJuly 26, 2000 meeting.
Mr. Suk closed the public heari
Ms. Petersson moved to co , ue Type III, Phase I Varia a #00-14 and Type II
Conditional Use Permit #0 F 8 by Olmsted Medical Cente July 26, 2000. Mr. Brede
seconded the motion. T motion carried 7-0.
Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated July 7, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Baker explained that the City of Rochester and Marion Township have entered into many
orderly annexation agreements in the last year. The agreement states that, in the future, certain
properties in Marion Township would be annexed into Rochester. She explained that the
current hearing is not a hearing to annex any properties into Rochester. She explained that the
hearing is to extend the City's land use and zoning controls to those areas that have been
agreed upon for future annexation. Thereby, establishing city zoning districts within the areas
agreed upon for future annexation.
Ms. Baker referred to a resolution that the County Board adopted relinquishing the county
zoning and land use controls within that area. The orderly annexation agreement spells out that
the City may extend land use and zoning controls to those areas.
Ms. Baker handed out colored copies of maps showing the proposed zoning to the audience.
Ms. Schultze entered the meeting.
Ms. Baker explained that the primary goal of the recommendations was to take what the current
county zoning is and recommend an appropriate zoning district within the City that is similar to
Page 0 1
City Planning and Zoning Corrunission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 12, 2000
the current County zoning. She explained that there are a few properties that are not being
recommended to a district that is the same or close to the same as what they currently have.
She indicated that most of those properties are proposed to be designated in the Interim Zoning
District. She explained that the Interim Zoning District is structured so that the existing use
could continue. Any change of the use on the property, after being zoned Interim, would require
the applicant to obtain a permanent zoning district. Therefore, they would need to make an
application with the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department to obtain such zoning district.
She indicated that the application process would trigger public hearings. Thereby, neighboring
properties would be notified.
Mr. Gary Neumann, from City Administration, addressed the Commission. He indicated that the
meeting was not about annexation or the Water Quality Protection Program. He stated that he
believes there have been some misunderstandings about the request. He indicated that each
sewer and water project would need their own project hearing with regard to the Water Quality
Protection Program.
Mr. Neumann explained that, when the City negotiated an agreement with Marion Township, the
City stated that, in return for that investment, they need to be able to control the planning and
zoning in the area. If they did not control the planning and zoning, there could be uses put in
the area that would make it difficult to extend the city services in the future.
Mr. Neumann explained that annexation of developed properties could only occur if:
The City agreed to undertake a water and sewer project with the Water Quality
Protection Program subsidies to the subdivision or area of the township. This would
require a project hearing, feasibility report by the Public Works Department, and a strong
show of support by the residents.
Mr. Neumann stated that, in most of the subdivisions that they have gotten petitions for the
Water Quality Protection Program, there is a petition rate of 65 to 70 percent. Therefore, that is
why Marion Township agreed to allow a lot of the area to get into an orderly annexation
agreement.
Mr. Neumann stated that, if the people in the subdivision do not agree to sign the connection
agreements, consistent with holding the pubic hearing, the City would not undertake the project.
If the City does not undertake a project, the lands would not be annexed.
Mr. Neumann stated that they have a project they are doing along Pinewood Road. He
explained that those individuals living in that area could only be annexed five years after the
project is completed. Therefore, there is no immediate annexation to any of the properties that
are being considered at this time.
Mr. Neumann stated that 900 people in this area have petitioned for city water and sewer
services. He indicated that this project was intended to be done over a period of 15 years.
However, after meeting with people in Marion Township, the demand and need for the Water
Quality Protection Program funding was considerably greater than anticipated.
Mr. Neumann stated that he realizes there are a lot of questions with regard to the Water
Quality Protection Program. Therefore, he suggested that staff hold an informational meeting,
rather than address them at the present meeting. He indicated that he would have several staff
available for a period of three or four hours that would allow each person to ask individual
Page 5 • • /
OOU City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 12, 2000
questions. He indicated that staff would notify each property owner of the informational
meeting.
Mr. Neumann stated that the petition rate in the area is between 65 and 75 percent.
Mr. Suk asked the audience to raise their hands if they have individual questions on their
property and how it would be affected with the Water Quality Program or the zoning request. (90
percent of the people raised their hands)
Mr. Suk asked how many people in the audience wanted to know about the zoning request. (50
percent of the people raised their hands)
Mr. Terry Spaeth, from City Administration, addressed the Commission. He indicated that he
would like the Commission to hear some of the neighbor's concerns to prepare for the
informational meeting.
Mr. Spaeth explained that some of the properties that are designed to be in the Interim Zoning
District are inconsistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designation. He
indicated that those properties never should have been zoned what they currently are.
Mr. Neumann asked Ms. Baker to go through the maps. He indicated that it would take staff
awhile to get information together for the informational meeting. Therefore, he would like the
issue to be delayed for approximately six (6) weeks before coming back to the Commission.
Ms. Baker informed the Commission that they could table the issue and renotify the neighbors,
with the intent that the issue would come back to the Commission within a two (2) month period.
Ms. Baker went over the proposed zoning maps. She explained what types of uses could
develop in each zoning district.
Ms. Baker explained that the County's Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts have more
limitations than the City's Commercial and Industrial Districts. She explained that, since the
county residents need to have wells and septic systems, there are different setback
requirements and different types of uses allowed.
Ms. Baker stated that the County Board approved a Special District for a contractor's yard for a
property south of Marion Road. Therefore, staff may need to suggest alternate zoning for the
area. She indicated that they would talk more about the issue at the Commission's next
meeting.
Ms. Baker stated that people who currently have horses on their property may continue to keep
them. However, they would not be able to add additional horses.
Mr. Staver stated that there are few R-2, R-3, and B-1, and B-4 zoning districts designated. He
asked if this caused additional discussion for the planning staff, in terms of providing appropriate
transitioning and buffering.
Ms. Baker stated that there are a lot of properties in the City that have commercial zoning
directly adjacent to a low -density district. She indicated that the City Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual was written so that uses can be compatible as long as they have
Page 6 • • ! ?7 /
City Planning and Zoning Comrnission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 12, 2000
appropriate setbacks, landscaping, and fencing. She indicated that a number of staff looked at
the proposed map and discussed each property.
Mr. Spaeth stated that, when some of the areas that are currently undeveloped come forward
with specific development proposals, the general development plans may show a mixture of
uses.
Mr. Suk opened the public hearing.
Ms. Margaret Nelson, of 1405 Main Street, Zumbrota, addressed the Commission. She asked
what would happen to her property taxes, if the property were zoned R-2.
Mr. Neumann responded that the taxes would not change. He explained that taxes are based
on the use of the land, even if annexed. He explained that the property taxes would only
change when the land is platted and starts going through the development process.
Ms. Nelson stated that the Assessors office told her two years ago that, if the property were
rezoned, her taxes would change.
Mr. Neumann responded that he would check into her question.
Ms. Baker stated that Ms. Nelson's property is being proposed to be placed in the Interim
Zoning District. She explained that no permanent zoning district would be established, until it
was developed.
Mr. George Ingalls, 4714 Vine Place SE, addressed the Commission. He explained that he
owns the property on 301h Avenue SE that is being proposed to be zoned to the Interim Zoning
District. He stated that he rezoned 10 acres of his property to commercial through Olmsted
County. He indicated that it has been zoned commercial since 1938.
Ms. Baker stated that the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department extensively discussed his
property. She indicated that the property would not be recommended to be zoned commercial,
as it is not consistent with the City Land Use Plan or future long-term plan for uses of land.
Mr. Suk stated that Mr. Ingalls may want to get together with staff to discuss the issue.
Mr. Ingalls stated that he rezoned the property through the County Board. Therefore, he
believes that it should stay that way and not change.
Ms. Baker explained that the County's Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts are more
limited than the City's. She indicated that, if the City Planning Commission or City Council
decide to designate the property to be in the Interim Zoning District, the property owner could
petition for permanent zoning. She explained that the application process would trigger public
hearings.
Mr. Ingalls stated that the Hathaway Tree Service and Strain Bus Company are on either side of
his property. Therefore, he does not understand why his commercial property could not stay as
zoned.
Ms. Baker stated that he could continue his present use. However, he would not be able to
expand the use or change it.
(go Page 7 0 •
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 12, 2000
Ms. Schultze asked to have a summary of each property that is recommended to be zoned
Interim.
Ms. Baker responded that she would prepare a separate map and provide additional
information. She indicated that, if property owners are not in agreement with the map, they
could provide information to the Rochester -Olmsted Planning staff. She pointed out that the
department does not make the actual changes; staff only makes recommendations to the City
Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Kevin Guy, of 2241 Marion Road SE, addressed the Commission. He stated that he owned
Southside Speedway. He stated that he has operated his business and provided services to the
City for 8 years. He expressed frustration with the City of having to make an additional zone
change request process, as his property is being proposed to be zoned Interim. He explained
that, without expansion, his business does not have a future. He indicated that the Park and
Recreation Board has being very involved in the business. Also, he has done several national
events. He stated that he is confident that the Town Board and County Board made sound
decisions when he rezoned his property the first time.
Mr. Suk recommended that he meet with staff.
Mr. Guy expressed concern with just receiving the proposed map and it not being in color.
Ms. Petersson asked Ms. Baker about expanding Mr. Guy's property
Ms. Baker responded that staff spoke with regard to Mr. Guy's property specifically. She
indicated that, within the Highway Commercial Zoning District, the use of the property would
require a conditional use permit. She stated that, if Mr. Guy expanded his property while being
under the County's zoning jurisdiction, he would need a new conditional use permit or a
modification to the conditional use he currently has. She stated that, if an expanded use of the
property were proposed in the City, the restricted development conditional use permit process
would be applied.
Mr. Suk asked when the informational meeting would occur.
Mr. Neumann responded approximately one month. He indicated that postcards would be
mailed out to inform property owners. He indicated that the meeting would occur in the foyer of
the Government Center. He explained that they would setup various stations with a number of
staff. Color maps would be provided.
Certain people from the audience indicated that they would like a color map mailed to them,
prior to the meeting. (A sign up sheet was placed outside of the Board Chambers.)
Mr. Neumann stated that color maps would also be available at their office at the front desk.
Ms. Baker stated that the color maps are also available on the City's website on the Internet.
Mr. Neumann reiterated that no annexation is proposed at this time and that there will be an
informational meeting for property owners to attend.
Page 8 0 0 It
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 12, 2000
Mr. Suk stated that a letter, dated July 12, 2000, from Hank and Esther Sisson, was received by
the Commission discussion their concerns.
Ms. Schultze asked staff to provide the Commissioners with a color copy of the existing zoning
in the County.
Mr. Brede moved to table Zoning District Amendment #00-09 initiated by the City, with
the idea that the request would come before the Commission within 3 months. Ms.
Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0.
The Commission took a 15 minute recess.
TYPE II DESIGN MODIFICATION:
Ms. Mitzi Bakero
report is on file at
Ms. Baker stated that
district, at some time.
m
nted the staff report, dated July 3, 2000, tg^e Commission. The staff
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Departm
Mr. Don Supalla, of 1906 Td A
Rochester Community and Tei
get the campus rezoned in the
to the applicant t the property be rezoned to a special
NE, addre ed the Commission. He is the President of
Colleg He indicated that they intend to work with staff to
,man to a special district.
Mr. Supalla stated that a contract has n signed for construction and would like to commence
construction within the next couple o ee
Mr. Suk asked how many square et the Cen would be.
Mr. Supalla responded 115, square feet. He s ted that there will be a combination field
house, performance wood rt, fitness center, wres 'ng room, faculty offices, and classrooms.
Ms. Schultze moved to pprove Type II Design ModDkcation #00-09 for the Rochester
Community and Tec ical College. Mr. Burke secon d the motion. The motion carried
8-0.
OTHER BUSIN
1. As mav /brouciht up with members.
Ms. Bak stated that she received some correspondence fro\Denny with regard to trees
in bo vards. She stated that the decision is made by the Cs Department of
whe r or not the sidewalk would accommodate trees.
Baker stated that Mr. Stolz explained that certain trees are sensitive to grVe changes.
July 12, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson,
We are property owners living at 3301 42od Avenue SE in Rochester
who are concerned about the potential city sewer, establishment of city
zoning and annexation of our property under the Orderly Annexation
Agreements with Marion Township.
Property owners in Whynaughts, Marvale, Nelsons, Christopher
Court and Samelians areas had the opportunity to express their opinions
about the sewer project at public hearings with the City Council earlier
this year. As of today we have not had an opportunity for participation in
a public hearing to consider the local improvement project for sanitary
sewer to our area. We would strongly oppose this project if we had
opportunity to speak.
We feel that the commission should not approve Zoning District
Amendment #00-90 for the Sections affected by Orderly Annexation
Agreement 5, which includes our property, because there has not been a
public hearing for our area yet. We should be treated the same as the
property owners in the other areas and be given a public hearing to
consider the sewer project before having the city zoning map extended to
our area. All property owners affected under the Orderly Annexation
Agreements should be treated equally.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Hank and Esther Sisson
3301 42`d Avenue SE
Rochester, MN
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Comm, on Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2000
• lB/
TABLED ITEMS:
Zoning District Amendment #00-09. Under the terms of the Orderly Annexation
agreements between the City of Rochester and Marion Township, the City has initiated to
amend the City of Rochester zoning map to establish City zoning districts for properties
in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18 and 21 Marion Township that are included in the Orderly
Annexation agreements.
Ms. Mitzi Baker presented a memorandum dated September 21, 2000 and the staff report,
dated July 7, 2000, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted
Planning Department.
Ms. Baker explained that the request is for a zone change and not for immediate annexation.
She indicated that the properties would be annexed in the future, however, that is not the action
being requested at the present meeting.
Ms. Baker explained each proposed zoning district for all the properties in question. She
explained that staff tried to put the most accurate zoning district for what the property is
currently being used for and that is compatible with city zoning.
Ms. Baker stated that, at the July 12, 2000 meeting, there were questions regarding city
services. Therefore, the City Administrator's office held an informational meeting on August 16,
2000.
Ms. Baker stated that there were a few property owners that did not agree with staffs proposal
for zoning at the July 12, 2000 meeting. Those properties are addressed in the staff report,
which is available at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Baker explained what revisions were made to the proposed zoning map.
Ms. Schultze asked Ms. Baker to review staff's comments of each alternative, listed in the staff
report on page 26.
Ms. Baker reviewed each of the three alternatives, listed in the staff report on page 26.
Ms. Baker explained that neighbors resisted a rezoning of "Property B" (property owned by Mr.
Skjervem) to Industrial. The property was rezoned on July 11, 2000 by the County Board to a
Special District with an Industrial Designation, however, she stated that rezoning the property to
"Interim" would allow the current use to continue on the property.
Ms. Baker stated that staff did speak with the four property owners, whose properties are
controversial, about rezoning the property to the M-1 zoning district. However, the M-1 zoning
district allows for a larger range of uses in the City.
Ms. Schultze asked if a Special District would involve the neighbors.
Ms. Baker responded yes.
Ms. Schultze asked if a Special District is an overlay.
t (}Page 3
l b 0City Planning and Zoning CommissionMinutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2000
Ms. Baker responded that it is its own district.
Ms. Petersson asked if the Interim zoning district would be compatible with the township.
Ms. Baker responded that the Interim zoning district only allows owners to continue what use is
presently on the property. Any changes would require a permanent zoning district.
Mr. Burke asked if the City would have to initiate an annexation, if the property were zoned to an
Interim zoning district.
Discussion ensued regarding the process of rezoning from the Interim zoning ordinance.
Ms. Petersson asked how much the process would cost.
Ms. Baker responded that it would depend on how large the property is, as the fees are based
on the number of acres.
Mr. Quinn asked how much time it would take to create a Special District.
Ms. Baker responded that, once the application is submitted, it would take approximately 7 to 8
weeks. She explained that the landowners would need to be involved in the process.
Mr. Burke asked how many Special Districts there are in the City.
Ms. Baker responded two (Arboretum and Foxcroft). She explained that Special Districts are
not very common.
Ms. Schultze stated that the City needs a good procedure for Special Districts, as she foresees
more instances arising.
Ms. Schultze asked why staff recommended an Interim zoning district.
Ms. Baker responded that staff does not known what the long-term plans are for the properties.
She explained that the property owners should decide what they want to do with their property,
before achieving a permanent zoning district. Future rezoning would also result in notices to
area property owners.
Ms. Schultze asked if a property owner could propose a Special District for their property.
Ms. Baker responded yes.
Mr. Brede asked if rezoning the property to the Interim zoning district would preclude the other
two alternatives discussed in the staff report at a later date.
Ms. Baker responded no.
Ms. Petersson stated that it would cost the property owner more money.
Ms. Baker responded that the applicant would need to pay application fees, unless the City
Council waived the fees.
Page 4
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2000
Mr. Quinn staled that staff is indicating that, if a property owner plans to operate their business
for the next 25 years, they would need to make additional applications to the Planning
Department.
Ms. Schultze responded that they would only need to make another application, if they made a
change.
Ms. Schultze stated that the advantage of the Interim zoning district would be that the owner
would be able to decide, at a later time, what they would like to do with their property. She
indicated that the Special District would force the property owner to decide what their plans for
their property would be now.
Mr. Burke asked if there would be a time frame that staff would require a Special District be
done in.
Ms. Baker responded that that it could take a few months, until the ordinances could be drawn
up.
Discussion ensued regarding how the process would work while ordinances where drawn up.
Ms. Polly Owens, of 3315 42 Avenue SE, addressed the Commission. She stated that she was
concerned about the planning and zoning extension. She indicated that she had a letter signed
by 16 property owners in the Thomas Subdivision area, which is currently in the orderly
annexation agreement with Marion Township. She indicated that the property owners in
Whynot, Marvale, Nelson, Christopher Court, and Samilias area had the opportunity to express
their opinions about the sewer project at a City Council hearing earlier this year. The Thomas
Subdivision area has not had the opportunity for public meetings regarding the sewer projects.
Therefore, she urges that the Commission to not approve the request for rezoning. She
indicated that she feels that they have not received the same just treatment as others in the
area.
Mr. Gary Neumann, of City Administration, addressed the Commission. He explained that there
is an indirect assumption that all the areas in the rezoning have had a meeting regarding
sanitary sewer and water projects. He indicated that most of the areas have had meetings with
the Public Works staff, in which petitions were received indicating more than 50 percent
approval of the projects. However, all areas will have a public hearing in front of the City
Council on a water and sewer project affecting their area. He explained that the reason the
Thomas Subdivision has not had a meeting is because a feasibility report needs to be
completed. After the report has been written, there would be a meeting with the neighborhood
and the neighbors to see if they would be interested in the project. After the neighborhood
meeting, there would be a public hearing in front of the City Council, at which time property
owners could express their opinions. He explained that, if the neighborhood does not support
the project, the City would not carryout the project.
Mr. Neumann stated that the Thomas Subdivision is not planned to be studied until 2001. That
is why the neighborhood has not had a meeting. He suggested that anyone in that area that
has more detailed questions should contact Jim Loehr at Public Works at 281-6004.
Mr. Neumann stated that, if the project were declined, it would not be annexed. He indicated
that he assumed that the property would go back to the township and county zoning districts.
In, Page i •
,ty Planning and Zoning Commollon Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2000
Ms. Owens stated that she has spoken with Jim Loehr. However, she feels it is still premature
to change the current zoning.
Ms. Schultze asked if there is language that directs that, if the water sewer projects do not
happen, the county zoning districts be reinforced.
Mr. Neumann stated that there is no such language in the agreement. However, if the areas
were not undertaken, they would release the properties back to the County.
Property "A" (as listed in the staff report):
Ms. Elaine Ingalls, of 4714 Vine Place SE, addressed the Commission. She indicated that she
owns property at 2305 301h Avenue SE. She explained that the property has been used
commercially since 1938. She indicated that there wasn't a "commercial" designating in 1938.
Therefore, they had to go through zoning when they purchased the property in 1993. She
indicated that they went through a great expense for that rezoning.
Ms. Ingalls stated that her property is surrounded by other commercial properties (Strain Bus
Company, Hathaway Tree Service, and Don Skjervem).
Ms. Ingalls stated that her property is in the floodway. Therefore, she would not be able to do
anything with their property if it were designated R-1. She indicated that her property would
decrease in value, if the commercial uses were taken away from it.
Ms. Ingalls stated that she did not know that her property was being proposed to be in the
Interim zoning district until July.
Mr. George Ingalls addressed the Commission. He indicated that he bought the property as an
investment for he and his wife's retirement. He indicated that he spoke with Ms. Baker and Mr.
Livingston about staffs suggested zoning. He expressed dissatisfaction with rezoning the
property to the R-1 zoning district. He stated that he did not want to go through the expense of
another rezoning. He stated that the County Board voted 5-2 to approve their current zoning
and that the Commissioners who voted against it only did so because a bar could be placed
there with their type of zoning.
Ms. Petersson asked if buildings could be developed on the Ingalls' property, if it were rezoned
to the R-1 zoning district.
Ms. Baker responded that the floodway encumbers a large portion of the Ingalls' property. She
stated that buildings are not permitted in the floodway. She also stated that staff did not look at
the potential for development on the property.
Discussion ensued regarding what could happen in floodway and flood plain areas.
Property "B" (as listed in the staff report):
Mr. Donald Skjervem addressed the Commission. He stated that he would like the property to
be zoned Interim, as he is not sure what future plans he has for the property.
Property "C" (as listed in the staff report):
r.
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes l D
Hearing Date: September 27, 2000
Mr. Kevin Guy, of 2241 Marion Road SE, addressed the Commission. He stated that he
acquired the property 10 to 12 years ago from Bob Ryan on a county tax foreclosure auction. At
that time, it was labeled Commercial on the taxes. He indicated that there was a radio tower
located on the property and that his property has always been taxed as a commercial piece of
property. However, when he started to develop the property, the Planning Department indicated
that the property was not zoned Commercial. Therefore, he went through the rezoning process.
He explained all the costs involved in the process.
Mr. Guy stated that the neighbors are in full support of his business. He stated that he has
plans to expand his business, which he would not be able to do in the Interim zoning district.
Mr. Suk asked Mr. Guy if he had reviewed staffs alternatives in the staff report.
Mr. Guy stated that he is in favor of the M-1 zoning district. However, he indicated that he was
not sure if his use was allowed in that district. He indicated that there are properties in the B-5
zoning district and questioned why his property couldn't be rezoned to that.
Mr. Guy stated that he would like to add additional recreational functions on his property.
Ms. Baker responded that outdoor recreation is a permitted use in the M-1 zoning district. She
indicated that it is a Type II use, which would require a conditional use permit reviewed by the
City Planning and Zoning Commission. However, a public hearing could be requested by
neighbors. She indicated that outdoor recreation is not a permitted use in the B-1 and B-4
zoning districts.
Ms. Schultze stated that the County has an outdoor recreation zoning district and the City does
not.
Mr. Burke asked if a Special District would be appropriate.
Ms. Baker responded that it would allow the City to outline specific recreational uses, without
allowing some of the other industrial and commercial uses.
Mr. Guy expressed concern with regard to additional zoning and permit fees.
Mr. Suk asked if a Special District is the City's responsibility.
Ms. Baker responded that, in other cases, the City has not taken the initiative to develop Special
District regulations. However, in the current request, the Council would have the authority to
waive the fees for such an application and direct Staff to develop the required information.
However, the property would be involved in the process.
Ms. Petersson stated that the Commission could recommend that the fees be waived.
Mr. Guy stated that he would like to expand his business very soon and expressed concern with
the amount of time a Special District could take.
Ms. Schultze stated that, since he knows what he wants to do with the business, it would help to
build the language for the ordinances.
WPage 7 1• i
City Planning and Zoning Commisa n Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2000
Ms. Baker agreed that, since he has specific plans for the future, it would help in the drafting
stage of the ordinances.
Property "D" (as listed in the staff report):
Mr. George Kingsley, of 4310 291h Street SE, addressed the Commission. He indicated that he
runs a body shop on his property, as well as a car sales lot. He indicated that he purchased the
property in 1989, which was zoned as Highway Commercial. He stated that he does not
understand why his property doesn't meet the criteria for a dealership. He stated that he would
like to at least have an M-1 zoning designation, as he does not want to be in the Highway
Commercial zoning district in the City.
Ms. Petersson stated that the Interim zoning district would allow the use to continue.
Mr. Kingsley responded that he plans to sell some of the property, at some point. However, he
wants to keep the bottom part of the property for his commercial use.
Mr. Kingsley stated that he has a permit to construct a building on the lower portion of his
property.
Ms. Schultze asked if rezoning the bottom portion of the property to the M-1 zoning district is an
alternative.
Ms. Baker responded yes.
Ms. Schultze stated asked if the building he has a permit for is feasible within the M-1 zoning
district.
Ms. Baker responded yes.
Mr. Sulk asked if Ms. Schultze is suggesting that the area where the house is be in the R-1
zoning district and that the remainder of the property be zoned M-1.
Ms. Baker explained that there are 17 acres that staff is recommending be zoned Interim,
because it is largely undeveloped except for the car sales. She indicated that multiple types of
uses could be placed on the property in a Commercial or Industrial district, in the City.
Mr. Kingsley stated that he would place a building on the area being used for his car sales lot, if
it would help him to be rezoned M-1.
Ms. Schultze asked why the Interim zoning district was proposed instead of the M-1 zoning
district.
Ms. Baker explained that staff was concerned with regard to the size of undeveloped land and
the intensity that it could be developed in the City. She stated that staff recommends the Interim
zoning district so that they would have the opportunity to study the land for its appropriate use,
and neighbors would be involved.
Mr. Jim Kingsley, of 4308 29 Street SE, addressed the Commission. He indicated that he and
his brother George own the property that is being used commercially. He explained that they
purchased the land while it was zoned Highway Commercial. He indicated that they plan to
Page 8 •
City Planning and Zoning Commts�l6n Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2000
continue using it as Highway Commercial for their personal use and as a retirement vehicle. He
stated that, since they have been taxed over the years with a commercial use, it should not be
taken away from them.
Mr. Jim Kingsley stated that the orderly annexation agreement was signed so that those that do
not have good septic systems and wells could get serviced. He explained that their property
does not need city services.
Mr. Jeff Thompson, of 2271 Cedar Park Court SE, addressed the Commission. He informed the
Commission that he is a County Commissioner and that the County Board approved a zone
change on the Skjervem property approximately 3 months ago.
Mr. Thompson stated that the reason why there are so many businesses in the area is because
Marion Road used to be Highway 52 for many years. He explained that the properties in the
area have historically been used commercially and should continue to. He stated that people
have already gone through the zoning process and have paid money to have their commercial
uses valid. Therefore, they should not have to go through the process again.
Mr. Thompson stated that he agrees with the residents of the Thomas Subdivision regarding
how Mr. Neumann is handling the process. He expressed concern with there being no
language that automatically changes the zoning back to the county zoning, if city services do
not work.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Sulk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Schultze asked Mr. Neumann to comment with regard to the resident's of Thomas
Subdivision concerns with the process.
Mr. Neumann stated that there was strong support of the project in the surrounding subdivisions
of Thomas Court. He indicated that they would receive the same consideration, once their area
is studied. He explained that the facilities would need to serve a large area in order for the
project to work.
Discussion ensued regarding the process of reverting the zoning back to the county
designations, if city services and annexation were not feasible.
Mr. Suk stated that it seems as though "Property B" should be zoned to the Interim zoning
district, "Property C" should be placed in a Special District, and that "Property A" and "Property
D" are in question.
Ms. Petersson moved to suspend Roberts Rules of Order to have a discussion, prior to a
motion. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Ms. Schultze recommended that "Property B" and "Property C" be placed in the Interim zoning
district. Also, all fees should be waived for "Property A", "Property B", "Property C", and
"Property D".
Ms. Schultze recommended "Property A" and "Property D" should be placed in the Interim
zoning district and allow the property owners to work with staff on what their long-range plans
could be.
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Comn,,,,,on Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2000
Mr. Quinn recommended that the entire "Property D" should be placed in the Interim zoning
district.
Ms. Schultze stated that the area of "Property D" that is shown as residential should also stand.
Ms. Schultze moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #I00 09 wtth.!,„F
Prooperty A,, „Prooperty B,, and, Property D bean the interim zoning*district asµ {Xfi �
presented by ;staff, and that "PropertyTC" be placed to a Special Dtstrtc' The tialance of f'
the map should be adapted as proposed Also; feesafor pro{perttess q
be waived for future rezoning apphcahons Ms Pet1 1s 1 "1 seconded f e motions, The
[. "+ s# - si. a Yaa'. #SY Y+. v a crr 1 roe a+a
rtiotioncarried7-Ou,kr3..,.rtityaAY q�h�EA11{ g 4,ga 34 y°srtk{'+yFrVa.
The Commission took a short break.
LIC
T e Phase II Special District Amendment Project Development Plan to allo e
constru 'on of a Carpet One Store in the Special District-1 Arboretum zoni district.
The propeft is located along the west side of the TH 52 West frontage roaar south of 55"
Street NW aft north of the Eastwood Bank Building.
Ms. Mitzi Baker prented the staff report, dated September 21. 2000. t e Commission. The
staff report is onhe Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Baker stated that she ad a conversation with the consultan egarding requiring a
pedestrian trail along Kings Nun corridor (condition number 21' ted in the staff report). She
indicated that the issue will ne to be clarified prior to the Council meeting with City Public
Works.
Ms. Schultze asked if there were addKions made in tIXArboretum Special District last year.
Ms. Baker responded that the ordinanceslth,
application were refined earlier this year to
indicated that the criteria is listed in the staff
samples are not required until the final plaryl
The applicant's representative, Mr.
Commission. He indicated that Mr
the review procedure for a Special District
what criteria specifically apply. She
She explained that the actual architectural
uller of 1,09 Wood Lake Drive SE, addressed the
�r was al present to answer any questions.
Mr. Schuller stated that he wouloe getting together with ff regarding staff -suggested
Condition Number 2. He expla' ed that he is not sure that a Ike path will fit into the area that
staff is suggesting that it be paced due to a flood plain. Othe\color
ith all of staffs
conditions.
Mr. Sulk asked if the is a could be resolved, prior to the City
Mr. Schuller respo ed yes. He indicated that they would pree to staff, prior
to the City Coun meeting.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1q r /
DATE: 11-6-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
G , q
ITEM DESCRIPTION. Reconsideration of bituminous plant included in Restricted
PREPARED BY:
Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05, for property located south of 40'h St. Sw,
Mitzi A. Baker,
west of T.H. 63.
Senior Planner
November 1, 2000
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated November 1, 2000.
Council Action Needed:
If the Council wishes to extend approval of the bituminous plant, it should instruct the City Attorney to
prepare resolution that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
Council should specify the length of time the permit would be extended.
_.. ibution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
4. Planning Department File
5. John Arnold
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday November 6, 2000, in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
NCIL ACTION:
Motion By: Seconded By: Action:
r
omelt►9inn
AurIA�lau�!
I�a.�O!\saw+al
Kpni[41a�r UJ
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
DATE: November 1, 2000 MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
TO: Rochester Common Council BUILDING CODE 507/265-8213
WELVSEPTIC 5071285-8345
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner FAX 507/267-2275
RE: Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05, Reconsideration of
Bituminous Processing Plant south of 401h St. SW, west of TH 63 and east
of 11°h Ave. SW.
Summary:
On March 15, 1999 the City Council approved an amendment to Restricted Development
Conditional Use Permit #98-05, filed by Frank P. Kottschade, to allow for a bituminous batch
mixing plant and associated haul roads and stockpiling on property located south of 40" St. SW,
west of TH 63 and east of 11'h Ave. SW. The portion of the permit concerning the bituminous
plant was approved temporarily with a requirement that it be reviewed at a public hearing in July
2000, The City Council held this hearing in advance on March 6, 2000 in response to a request
filed by Mr. John Arnold. During the March 6, 2000 hearing, there was some confusion about the
scope and extent of the term "review" as it was found in the March 21, 1999 Findings Document.
In order to more adequately state the Council's March 31, 1999, decision and intent, and in order
to remove all doubt from the process, the Council amended its March 31, 1999 findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order. The Council also decided to extend that portion of the Permit
relating to the Bituminous Plant to November 6, 2000.
Recommendation:
At this time, there is no operational history for the bituminous plant since it has not been put into
use since the approval of the permit. Since that is the case, staff recommends that if the Council
wishes to extend the permit, as it relates to the bituminous plant, that it be extended to November
5, 2001 with a requirement for a Public Hearing to be held, on that date, in front of the City
Council to consider whether the permit should be extended further.
Previous Conditions of Approval:
On March 15, 1999 the City Council approved an amendment to Restricted Development
Conditional Use Permit #98-05 with the following conditions or modifications and specified that
the portion of the amendment concerning the bituminous plant be reviewed by the Council
7�t]_.
V� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
.www
iq�
in July 2000 at a public hearing, to consider extension of the permit (it was later clarified
that the Council only temporarily approved of the bituminous plant):
1. Report dates included on the supplemental report do not coincide with report dates on
file with the Planning Department. The applicant shall correct dates or clarify with staff
the reason for the discrepancies. Also, corrections to the report be made that refer to
available access to TH 63 since no permits have been issued by the MN DOT for the
mininglprocessing uses.
2. The applicant provide proof of approval from the MN DOT to utilize access directly to
TH 63 for this use.
3. Importation of materials for processing be limited only to that necessary for the
bituminous batch plant/bituminous production.
4. All conditions, modifications or restrictions applied to conditional use permits
previously approved remain in effect except for the extension of hours/days of
operation applied to the bituminous plant which may operate from 7am-7pm Monday -
Friday and on Saturdays as needed.
5. Additional signage and warning signals be utilized along 40ffi St. SW and TH 63 to
maximize safety and identify slow moving trucks within the area.
B. Access to 40`h St. SW, east of Willow Creek is temporary and direct access to TH 63 for
mininglprocessing uses has not been approved or issued by MN DOT. The applicant
shall identify alternative access routes and haul road accesses to public roadways that
may be utilized if the current accesses shown on the Plan are not available for use in
the future.
7. Subject to the result of any declaratory judgment which maybe filed concerning this
issue, a wetland investigation shall be completed and approved for portions of the Site
not previously field -reviewed by the LGIJ and that the applicant shall obtain a No Loss
Certificate, exemption or approved replacement plan prior to disturbing the area.
8. Revised Plans be submitted to the Planning Department that correctly reflect previous
approvals and that include any modifications required through this amendment.
9. When the bituminous plant is operating, other adjacent mining operations would not
be operating to minimize truck traffic.
ATTACHMENTS:
Map
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING f 9 J
DATE: 11/06/00
iNDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: I n G6 ITEM NO.
�
lie Hearing Building Safety
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Abatement Order for the Property at 509 9'm Avenue NW
Ron Boose
The Rochester Building Safety Department has initiated this abatement action against the property located at 509 9a'
Avenue NW in the City of Rochester. This property appears to have been abandoned and was placarded as unfit for
human habitation on August 4, 2000. The county records identify the owner to be Mrs. Ronald Klee with a last known
address of 1613 Hillside Drive NW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52405. Mrs. Klee has failed to respond to letters from this
department and the city attorney's office.
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 463 provides a procedure by which the owners of property can be ordered to repair or
remove conditions or structures that are determined to be hazardous. By statute a hazardous building or hazardous
property means any building or property, which because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage,
unsanitary condition, or abandonment, constitutes a fire hazard or a hazard to public safety or health. This department
believes that the property currently meets this definition.
The first step in this process is a determination by the Council that the conditions at this property meet the definition of
a hazardous building or hazardous property. This department recommends that you find the property to be hazardous as
a result of the following:
structure is an unoccupied single-family dwelling located in a mixed industrial commercial area. There is frequent
dalism occurring to the house and detached single stall garage. Exterior siding on both buildings most likely
contains asbestos and is damaged. Severely peeling paint on all wood trim and windows is most likely lead based.
Overhead garage door is damaged beyond repair. The house front porch roof is structurally bowed and unsafe.
Shingles are deteriorated. Sections of the porch soffit and fascia are water damaged and rotten, exposing roof
insulation. The Porch is physically separating from the main structure. There are numerous broken basement storm
windows. Gas furnace was red tagged as unsafe to use by People's Natural Gas Company. Gas was turned off May
3, 2000. According to Rochester Public Utilities power was physically turned off May 8, 2000, Water meter removed
and water was turned off at the curb October 31, 2000. Property is a liability and potential fire threat for adjacent
business. The vacant property is also a liability for staff of the Rochester Police Department and Building Safety staff.
Public safety is a concern for citizens in the nearby residential neighborhood due to location of the property and
proximity to a park bike path.
If the council finds the property or building hazardous, we recommend that the following actions be taken to make it
non -hazardous:
Scheduled for demolition and removal.
Finally, the department recommends that 30 days be allowed for the owner to take the actions identified above.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Following the public hearing, the council should adopt findings and determine whether the property or building at 509
9`b Avenue NW in the City of Rochester is hazardous as defined by state law. If the property or building is found to be
hazardous, the council should identify the actions needed, and the time within the property owner should take these
ons, to make the property or building non -hazardous.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mobonby: second by:
MEETING 1 f
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SECTION:
'OLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
G. 1. RESOLUTI
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
DATE: 11/6/00
IT NO.
G
TERRY ADKINS
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
a) An Ordinance Amending Sections 38.11, Subdivisions 1, 7, and 8 of Section 28.152, and
Subdivisions 2 and 4 of Section 38.153 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the
Suspension or Revocation of Rental Registration Certificate.
b) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 35.21 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances,
Relating to the Definition and Regulation of Open Areas within the Housing Code.
c) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property From the R-1 District to the R-2 District, and
Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of
the Cir; of Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located North of Pinewood Road SE, West of 22nd
Avenue SE; East of the Bikeway Trail.
d) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property from the R-1 District to the B-5 District, and Amending
Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located on the East side of 11 Avenue SE; North of the
Future Alignment of 20th Street SE, West of Bear Creek.
e) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester a Portion of the South Half of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 10, the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 11, the Northwest Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter, and the South Half of Section 14, Section 15, the East Half of the
Northeast Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, the Northwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23,
all in Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located in
Sections 10, 11, 14, 15, 16,and 23pyof Rochester Township.
MAW'r'f , # (, (&VN/z P(" f
G 4. MISCELLANEOUS
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second