HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/03/2001_Annual0
•
CITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA
O
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 1
ANNUAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2001
7:00 P.M.
PAGE
(1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
(3-4)
(5-6)
(7-8)
(9-10)
(11-12)
(13-14)
(15-16)
(17-24)
(25-26)
(27-28)
D)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
D)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
(29-30)
15)
(31-32)
16)
(33-34)
17)
(35-36)
18)
(37-38) 19)
�D>
a a)
ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
Address by President Hunziker
Request a Motion Adopting the Following Prepared Resolutions
Appointment to Committees by President Hunziker
Address by Mayor Canfield
Designation of Official Paper
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
Establishment of Mayor, Council Salaries for 2001
Mayor Mileage Reimbursement
Highway 14 Partnership Membership
Extension of Jerry Dooley's Contract
River's Edge HRA Housing Project
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
Wine & 3.2% Beer License for The Sandtrap Indoor Golf Facility and
Restaurant
Approval of Accounts Payable
Donations for Restoration of Sayers and Scovil Fire Engine
Appointment to Planning and Zoning Commission
Authorize Execution of Utility Connection Agreements Required for
Water Quality Protection Program
Special Parking Zone for Johnson Printing Company
1`1� 'O°
Council Agenda
Wednesday, January 3, 2001
Page 2
E) HEARINGS
(39-60) 1) Preliminary Plat by Arnold Bomgaars to be Known as Spruce
Meadows Second Subdivision
(61-62) 2) Reduced Fare Program/Rochester City Lines
(63-68) 3) Increase in ZIPS Fares
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(69-90) 1) City Administrator — Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Related
to Appeal #00-04 of Variance Request #00-32
(91-92) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ( '
DATE: 1/
A SECTION:
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
ITEM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
ORIGINATING DEPT: IT
CITY ADMINISTRATOR A
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 forum.
• Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing.
uL)UNCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 3
DATE: 1/',
AGENDA SECTION:
ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM I
CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-5
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS FOR 2001 ANNUAL MEETING
K. EVANS
Following are the Council Organizational Business items which are normally handled at the Annual Council
Meeting:
D-1 Address by President Hunziker
D-2 Request a motion adopting the following prepared resolutions:
a) Resolution adopting the Roberts Rules of Order for the conduct of business by the Council;
b) Resolution adopting the Rules and Regulations for Order of Business of the Council;
c) Resolution establishing committees of the Common Council, prescribing their functions and
duties, and providing appointment to members of subcommittees;
d) Resolution adopting the order of succession to discharge the duties of the Councilmember-At-
Large in the event of absence or disability.
D-3 Appointment to Committees by President Hunziker
D-4 Address by Mayor Canfield
D-5 Designation of Official Paper
Request a motion designating the Rochester Post -Bulletin as the official newspaper to publish the
official printing and advertising of the City of Rochester for the official year commencing January 3,
2001, at the rate established by the statutes of the State of Minnesota for legal publications.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1/3/01
AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM N
CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-6-19
ra����iiu�00
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-6. Approval of Minutes
D-7. Establishment of Mayor, Council Salaries for 2001
D-8. Mayor Mileage Reimbursement
D-9. Highway 14 Partnership Membership
D-10. Extension of Jerry Dooley's Contract
D-11. River's Edge HRA Housing Project
D-12. Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
D-13. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
D-14. Wine & 3.2% Beer License for The Sandtrap Indoor Golf Facility and Restaurant
D-15. Approval of Accounts Payable
D-16. Donations for Restoration of Sayers and Scovil Fire Engine
D-17. Appointment to Planning and Zoning Commission
D-18. Authorize Execution of Utility Connection Agreements Required for Water Quality Protection Program
D-19. Special Parking Zone for Johnson Printing Company
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 07
DATE: 1/3/01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT
CITY ADMINISTRATOR I L)- q
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISHMENT OF MAYOR, COUNCIL SALARIES FOR 2001
S.KVENVOLD
The adopted 2001 budget anticipated an increase of the elected officials' compensation by 3%. The annual
compensation for the Mayor, Council President and Councilmembers will be as follows for 2001:
Mayor $28,003
Council President $20,632
Councilmembers $16,147
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion establishing the 2001 annual compensation for the Mayor, Council President and
Councilmembers as proposed above.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
CONSENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION: MAYOR MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
MEETING /
DATE: 1/3/01 1
ITEM NO.
0-8
PREPARED BY:
S.KVENVOLD
In 1998, the members of the City Council agreed to establish a monthly mileage allowance rather than receiving
reimbursements for actual miles driven. Mayor Canfield had indicated his desire to turn in his actual monthly
mileage for reimbursement rather than receiving a pre -established amount.
Mayor Canfield is now requesting the establishment of a monthly mileage allowance, retroactive for the year
2000.
The Mayor averaged $150 per month for mileage reimbursement for the year 1999. He is requesting a mileage
allowance of $145 per month for the year 2000 and $150 per month for the year 2001.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion establishing a mileage allowance for the Mayor of $145/month for 2000 and $150/month for
2001.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING I I
DATE: 1/3/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D I
ITEM DESCRIPTION: HIGHWAY 14 PARTNERSHIP MEMBERSHIP
PREPARED BY:
VOLD S. KVEN
The City of Rochester has been a member of the Highway 14 Partnership in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 at an
annual cost of $5,000.
The City has been requested to again be a member in the year 2001 and the membership fee remains at $5,000.
The City's position has been that it supports the improvement to Highway 14 as long as it does not interfere with
the priority or schedule for the improvement of TH52.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion transferring $5,000 from the 2000 Contingency Account for the 2001 Highway 14 Partnership
membership.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
HIGHWAY 14
PARTNERSHIP
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Neumann, Asst. City Administrator
FROM: Dan Scott, Highway 14 Partnership Treasurer
DATE: October 16, 2000
RE: 2001 Assessment for Highway 14 Partnership
The Highway 14 Partnership's program is funded through a general membership assessment of
member cities. At its steering committee meeting October 12, 2000 in Owatonna, the Highway
14 Partnership approved the 2001 assessment policy, which is unchanged from last year.
The 2001 membership assessment for Rochester is $5,000.
Payments may be made out of your 2000 or 2001 budgets, but payments should be made by
January 15, 2001. Please direct payment to:
Dan Scott
City of Mankato
P. O. Box 3368
Mankato, MN 56002
Thank you for your continued support of the Highway 14 Partnership. If you have any questions
about your Highway 14 assessment, please contact Kathleen Sheran at (507) 345-1290 or Corey
Elmer at (651) 225-8840.
cc: Marcia Marcoux, City Council
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING r3
DATE: 1 /3/01
DA SECTION,
CONSENT
CITY ADMINISTRATOR D,rO
ITEM DESCRIPTION: EXTENSION OF JERRY DOOLEY'S CONTRACT
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
Mayor Canfield has requested that Gerald Dooley's contract with the City of Rochester as the Neighborhood
Coordinator be extended through the end of January, 2001 in order that Mr. Dooley can continue to provide
assistance until the new Neighborhood Resource Center office is fully operational.
A Neighborhood Resource Center Director has been hired and an office is being established in the United Way
Building.
Mr. Dooley's contract with the City expires 12/31/00. Mr. Dooley has been paid a sum of $1,416.55 per month.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion extending Mr. Dooley's contract through 1/31/01 and appropriating $1,416.55 from the 2001
Contingency Account to fund the services.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING / ✓
CONSENT
ITEM DESCRIPTION: River's Edge HRA Housing Project
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Administration
DATE: 1/3/01
ITEM NO.
Z)-1(
PREPARED BY:
Doug Knott�'
on July 17, 2000, the Rochester City Council agreed to sell the former Silver Lake Motel site to the HRA for
the development of the River's Edge apartment complex. The Purchase Agreement contained a clause
stating that the property would revert back to the City if the HRA did not start construction by April 1,
2001.
The HRA needs a commitment from the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund in order to proceed with the
project. The GMHA is expected to act on the HRA's application at the end of April. Gary Lueders of the HRA
has requested an amendment to paragraph 7 of the Purchase Agreement changing the construction start
date to August 1, 2001.
CoUnW ACtiOn Requested
Approval of an amendment to paragraph 7 of the River's Edge Purchase Agreement changing the
construction start date from April 1, 2001 to August 1, 2001 with authorization for the Mayor and Clerk to
sign the necessary documents.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion bv: second
((,9
To: Doug Knott, City Administration
From: Gary Lueders, Housing Administrator
Date: December 21, 2000
RE: Purchase Agreement — River's Edge
Please change the date the Olmsted County Housing & Redevelopment
Authority (OCHRA) needs to begin construction on this project from April 1, 2001
to August 1, 2001.
The Rochester City Council approved at the July 17, 2000 meeting a purchase
agreement pertaining to the transfer of title for the site from the City to the
OCHRA. One of the conditions is as follows:
"The HRA is obligated to start construction of River's Edge by April 1,
2001 at the latest and complete the work within one year of that date. If
they don't proceed with the project, the property will revert to the City."
The OCHRA is unable to meet this deadline due to unexpected delays in
obtaining the needed funding from First Homes, Greater Minnesota Housing
Fund (GMHF) and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). At least one
funding agency, the GMHF, is concerned about this condition and has requested
that it be changed.
We remain optimistic that we will obtain the needed funding, based on comments
made by staff of the funding agencies that have reviewed all aspects of the
project.
Following is a tentative schedule:
Jan 1 - Feb 1 Applications submitted to First Homes, GMHF and MHFA.
Feb 1 - May 1 Funding decisions by First Homes, GMHF, MHFA. Plans
approved. Bidding documents prepared.
May 1 — May 30 Obtain bids.
Jun 1 —Jul 15 Sell Bonds
Aug 1 —Apr30 Construction
May 1 Ready for Occupancy
,? .
Meeting
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date 01/03/0
AGENDA SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT
ochester Public Utilities
D —1CP --
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
Kathy Wilson
The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on December 26, 2000 and requests
the Common Council's favorable consideration:
to approve a resolution to approve an insurance agreement with Hartford Steam
Boiler Company for furnishing All Risk Property Insurance for a twelve month
period commencing December 31, 2000 and expiring December 31, 2001. The
amount of the twelve month premium effective December 31, 2000 to be
1 $200,208.00.
to approve a resolution to approve an insurance agreement with the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for Commercial Automobile and General Liability
Insurance for a twelve month period commencing December 31, 2000 and expiring
December 31, 2001. The amount of the twelve month premium effective December
31, 2000 to be $100,924.00.
r to approve a resolution to approve an insurance agreement with Associated Electric
and Gas Insurance Services, Ltd. (AEGIS) for famishing Excess General Liability
I Insurance for a twelve month period commencing December 31, 2000 and expiring
_ December 31, 2001. The amount of the twelve month premium effective December
` 31, 2000 to be $42,177.00.
1 to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with L&L Substation
for substation materials. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be
$165,216.00 and L&L Substation being lowest responsible bidder.
to approve a resolution to approve a 5% increase in water revenue rates effective
January 4, 2001.
t
to approve a resolution to approve a Power Marketing Services Agreement with the
Omaha Public Power District subject to final review by the General Manager and
City Attorney, and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City
Clerk to execute the agreement.
GENERAL MANAGER: 641 � �"'- /A/q'7/�
(�
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
r.
Nr p"Odge, wt dalWer
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the
Common Council of the said City is requested to approve an insurance agreement with Hartford
Steam Boiler Company for furnishing the following insurance coverage:
ALL RISK PROPERTY INSURANCE
The insurance agreement to be for a twelve month policy period commencing December 31, 2000
and expiring December 31, 2001.
The amount of the twelve month premium effective December 31, 2000 to be TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHT AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($200,208.00).
Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 26 h day of December,
2000.
Pre4Oent
Secretary
rru�,_
We pU JO, we deliver
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the
Common Council of the said City is requested to approve a purchase order agreement with L&L
Substation for
Substation Materials
The amount of the purchase order agreement to be ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND
TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($165,216.00) and L&L Substation being
lowest responsible bidder.
Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 26th day of
December, 2000.
President
Secretary 1"D �-1 ✓�
we /rQGye. we Celiver
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the
Common Council of the said City is requested to approve a S% increase in water revenue rates
effective January 4, 2001.
Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 26`s day of December,
2000.
resident
iti t� z e LA) U J-M
Secretary
Agenda Item # 9
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date:
APPROVAL OF WATER RATE INCREASE
Larry Koshire, General Manager
12/26/00
The Board considered the water operating budget as presented in draft form in November, which included
the recommendation for a 4% increase in water rates effective January 4, 2001. The Board recommended
that RPU provide a public notice that the Board would consider a water rate increase of up to 5% at its
December 26, 2000 meeting. This notice has been provided, and we have received little feedback or
concern.
The attached spreadsheet document provides various rate increase scenarios for your review. Because of
the low revenue produced by the water utility in relation to the capital expenditures, we are targeting cash
reserves to support these capital expenditures as well as unknown future changes. Because of the unknown
expenditures in the water quality program, we have internally considered setting aside a cash reserve to
account for those capital needs as well as unexpected growth requirements in the community. A 5%
increase would allow us to build towards those reserves, even in a wet year scenario.
The draft budget recommended a 4% increase to maintain positive net income and a cash balance to
support capital expenditures. The average residential water customer's bill is approximately $8.72. At a
4% increase, the average bill would be $9.07. At a 5% increase, the average bill would be $9.16. The 4%
increase recommended in the preliminary budget for 2001 would not return cash reserves to the
recommended level until 2003. Projections on the attached sheet indicate a 5% increase would return
reserves to the recommended level sometime in 2002. By using the larger increase, reserves are returned to
normal more quickly, and a planned construction reserve could then be started to help offset expenses of
future infrastructure.investments.
A marked up version of the Water Service (WTR) Rate Tariff showing a 5% adjustment is also attached for
the Board's review and approval.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
1. It is recommended that the Board request the Common Council to approve a 5% revenue increase in
water rates effective January 4, 2001.
2. The Board is requested to approve a resolution to approve the Water Service (WTR) Rate Tariff
effective January 4, 2001.
I 'b l 00
eral Manager Date
O
w
10 m m A
N
(Jt
N
m
m
O
W
A O W+
m a m W
0
W
+
A
N m W
N
m
V
N W N W
a
m
9y
n
y
N ] n
�
p
� • a G
N
y
CO c 3 m
O
� u .
m
n
on
M
O m V N
m m + m
N N A O
OA1 4 N O
f
fn
A �I O V
p
Y
N
V N N
O
m
7
m
m m N N
~
O (
7
wtpmN
V
N D
2
o
n
+A
you N
C
+
L1Nmuo
N
Z
O
3
�
Ot
N OI N N
N D
x
N
o m W m
c r
J
f0
fp m O m
N {
D
A
N
O
n
A tmp O N
O
V
O
J j W
O
{
O
N
N m N N
O {
m
V
O m N O
N D
A
Z
a
m
m
N
m
A fp O V
m`a,m o
O
m
u
+
N
N m W (O
N
m
m
N W N m
Q
N A V C R N
O
a
W
m
o
Como.
o
N 0 W N
ra-
{
m
a
Tl
2
O
m
1p UI N Lf m N
w a m m a c
O
m
V m A O N w
m
+
N N m W ep N
O C
9 y
'n
7
y
N n fQ
v
n
n%= m m
n
m y^ O
u
Z
y ^ V
S 9
v p.
maw 3
m3
m=
n m
a �
M
O
V
V J O O
j
❑
C
m
m N m m
N o OI V
O
m 0 m N N
N
m
a
A
Z
O
m
V A (p (p N O
J
N N T lY IV N
N
m m O N Y O
J
N
m
_
O
j
m
O
O m V
rn m m o m N
D
.a
2
w + O
0
rn
rn rn a m m �
+
+ N
m
m N w+ m A
+
N
A V O v
N
Z
O
^
3
N
�
m
umiom�u
o
O
N
m m N m
N
{
a
A
O
m
m N W N
N
m
m
a m N N
0
O
m
Nm�+N
w
+
+NmNm
N
m
N
m~
f0.1 .mP. (NJI
p
a
e
�
n:y�
e
N w Si
y
$
O
C
V
A
V N V
O
V
A
N t0
O
m
v
o m m a
c m
O
W
10 m m A
N D
A
2
O
O
+
N lT W m
N O
O
m
m
A m m V
u
J
d
N m N+
N
m
m
N (ml m m
p
Ilm IIaIm a m A Ia
O N MN Y N
N N m O m m O
71
1
{
D
Z
0
O
�3
CPU,
we p<eCye, we Gctve�
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the
Common Council of the said City is requested to approve a Power Marketing Services Agreement
with the Omaha Public Power District subject to final review by the General Manager and City
Attorney, and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the
agreement for
Power Marketing Services Agreement
Omaha Public Power District
Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 26 h day of December,
2000.
lq3resident
Secretary
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING as
DATE: 1 /3/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
D- ( 3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DONNA I SC"
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
SE MN Center for Independent Living
1306 7d' St NW
Rochester Mn 55901
Raffle 2/1/01
Washington Elementary School PTA
1200 11 b Ave NW
Rochester Mn 55901
Raffle 2/24/01 AT
Kellogg Middle School
503 17d' St NE
Rochester Mn 55906
Ben Franklin PTSA
1801 9 h Ave SE
Rochester Mn 55904
Raffle 2/24/01 AND 515101
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses.
t.JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING R 7
DATE: 1 /3/01
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
DEPT:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: WINE & 3.2% BEER LICENSE FOR THE SANDTRAP
INDOOR GOLF FACILITY AND RESTAURANT
ITEM NO.
D-14
DONNAJSCHOTT
Application for a 3.2% On Sale Beer and Wine License has been received from Donald William McBumey.
The name of the business is The Sandtrap which is an indoor golf facility and restaurant located at 1618
Highway 52 North. Rochester, Mn. 55901. The business will be operated with food and liquor like the outdoor
golf courses in Rochester.
Issuance of the license is pending all departmental approvals, insurance certificates and all required fees
Completion of a confidential investigative report on the applicant has come back satisfactorily.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the On Sale 3.2 Beer and Wine License for The Sandtrap.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 0
DATE: 1 /3/01
Consent Agenda I Finance Department
Approval of Accounts Payable
Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable
(submitted separately) in the amount of $1,954,303.94.
Less: Any exceptions
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
L)
Dale Martinson
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3I /
DATE: 1/3/01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT Fire i) —(&
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
DONATIONS CHIEF KAPLER
The following donations have been made for the Restoration of the Sayers and Scovil fire engine:
Elmer LaBrash = $540.00
Nancy Duxbury- $200.00
John/Karen Theim = $20.00
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Request a motion to accept the monetary donations for the restoration of the Sayers and Scovil fire engine.
WUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
Organizational Business mayor's office
EM DESCRIPTION:
Appointment to Planning and Zonina Commission
MEETING 53 r
DATE: 1/3/01
ITEM NO.
D-1�
PREPARED BY:
I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the
Planning and Zoning Commission:
Lisa Wiesner
2924 16th Avenue NW
Ms Wiesner will fill the expired term of James Suk. Her first
three year term will run to December 31, 2003.
IL ACTION: Motion by. Second by. to:
RN
Mayor Chuck Canfield had
201 4th Street SE - Room 281 Au-ANr.RICA Cm
Rochester, N1N 55904-3782 1
VOLUNTEER APPLICATION
NAME: b-' �. WiL1YLf--------------
ADDRESS: 21Z4 41" rV NFU --
PHONE: BUS.LQC'_}I� HOME V'4q-i2&
DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS^: YES X NO___
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT:_.VpC,j�
I P.M SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON-Ybi1ftif% 4 *ZaW COY►1n*Am
tl
BECAUSE: rtlltfv(i '4DituI4 rN a1iA ft1nIN A&A 1,n i{rn vv%" Atr'rf. 11Wil/4
PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION r D'vC:+,TION, SPEGIAL INTERESTS,
ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach ad"4 tional
information, if desired.
_ fJ71 Ci 1��z kAtC Glti#trr�r�rr.. De lei _S�r� wux�f �duc�itlfw l �br (OWL.
Ae .'boyale). i'.uri: rr��� ,('t�at�i�rtl�i_I nn' S �re��„ ��taa<LLt��ics� rno�ruvhax�
TKMOIL F 1povtt V l2 > 1�1�ts, — --
- —
DATE SUBMITTED: tG�3J — SIGNED: 4,5,1,
Return to: Office of the Piayc;r
201 4thi Street SE
Rochester, MN 5.5904-37?2
DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
TERN EXPIRATION:
OTHER DATA: J
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3S
DATE: 1 /3/01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENTAGENDA Public Works D-(g
t cnll DESCRIPTION: Authorize the Execution of Utility Connection Agreements PREPARED BY:
Required for the Water Quality Protection Program, J8205 Aa-1 J. Loehr
On December 21, 1998 the City Council adopted the Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) to
provide for safe, reliable and affordable public water supply and sewage disposal for existing homes
located within the City of Rochester and to homes located in the townships surrounding the City that
are not currently served by the public sewer and water systems.
The Department of Public Works anticipates that up to 1500 properties will be served by the extension
of public sanitary sewer and watermain within the next five years. Each of these 1500 property owners
are required to enter into a Utility Connection Agreement prior to making connection to the public sewer
and water systems, and for participation in the WQPP.
Since the WQPP allows a property owner to enter into a Utility Connection Agreement anytime within
three years of the date the City Council authorizes a project to be constructed, the Agreements for
each property are presented to the City Council for approval as the Agreements are received and not
necessarily grouped together and presented on a project by project basis.
This procedure creates a delay of at least two to three weeks from the time a property owner signs an
Agreement to the time the City Council authorizes the Agreement to be signed by the Mayor and City
Clerk. The procedure also requires considerable paperwork for each Agreement that is presented to
the City Council.
The Department of Public Works feels that the delay and paperwork required for the execution of each
Agreement can be eliminated if, the City Council authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute any
and all Utility Connection Agreements required for participation in the WQPP.
The City Council authorization would be based on the following:
1. Each Utility Connection Agreement is consistent with the terms and conditions of the WQPP.
2. Final approval to execute each Utility Connection Agreement is made by the City Administrator
or his authorized designee.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute any and all Utility Connection
Agreements required for participation in the Water Quality Protection Program.
. JUINCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
A DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Zone
ORIGINATING DEPT:
111re MUTARR
MEETING c7?
DATE: 1-3-01
ITEM NO.
-tq
PREPARED BY:
N,, D. Rossmar
The City has received a request from Mr. Chuck Johnson of the Johnson Printing Company at 311 2"d
Avenue NW (288-7788), to designate the parking in the alley west of their building for the specific use
of the Johnson Printing Co. The location is shown on the attached map.
This is a dead-end alley. The platted width is 18 feet. Johnson Printing is the only property that would
use the alley for delivery. The property to the west is the Mayo power plant. The Mayo staff has no
objection to this request. Staff would recommend a monthly fee of $20 / space for this parking. This is
a situation is similar to alley parking in 3 other locations in the CBD when abutting property owners pay
a fee for thew space. Mr. Johnson has agreed to this fee.
Both the Police Department and the Fire Department have reviewed this request. Both departments
have no objection to the request.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution amending paragraph (4.0) of section C "Special Parking Zones" (Zone
A — General ) to read;
(4.0) Alley behind 311 2nd Avenue NW, on the east side from 3`d Street to Civic center Drive (four
spaces for the Johnson Printing Company.) at a monthly fee of $20 / space.
_-)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:
D �
�� 9L
D J Li
��
10 HR. PARKA
Kehler C
Inn and
Suites 1
Ozmun
Bldg.
L�uI
W
s
w
J
� Senio Citizens Q N
Central Park Q ~ N
Perw
-Thaler House oking ° @ qa9
2 ST NW 10 HR..,.
1 J Sanlor
enter I= D
—__-- ❑ �w
Rochester Methodistu �..
Days In 1. � >
Heapltel V....
:. WCENTER ST: We
Future , Kahler +� �
Gonda r Perked i "j" CTlhei
Building ,.+?
M., Crmk Perh.r.
Y. my.nc.unror ?y, No at
bmPonrY.Ve.l.ntl s t r Can II ,•
.u°..V dune.. e..atl u poet BUllsnn
..d th a.yo tla.m...
:'-•`'wV�... , ! �.� V 1 7.. v,1 St SE
+n G rpleca u.,
a Iehen lma ffwd G Ne W a
iMrrba-
Mayc Building Plummer ' Cmv Public I [us Pa Ion LibraryBa` kBurn Tr,
S BW .,I q/�_.Downtown
201 Bldg _
y q Bldg. Bldg
a Holiday
,seb� 3 1
O
Hilton Hilton tiirM.r a r
Bldg u*, 'a Hotela at
m a
< one Wa ® City He
f t7
Government
�$- Canter
4 ST
us J,Y
Bank
acAt k �Rrtl.A Li
r�r� Zo...Q
o
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1/3/01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM NO.
.D _, i)
ITEM DESCRIPTION: FUNDING REQUEST FOR STOP THE COAL TRAIN
ORGANIZATION
PREPARED BY:
M. MARCOUX
The Stop the Coal Train organization is requesting $25,000 in funding from the City of Rochester for their
continued efforts in public information relating to the proposed DM&E Railroad Expansion Project across
southern Minnesota.
This organization continues to provide valuable information to our citizens and keeps them interested and
involved in the process.
The source for this funding would be the 2001 Contingency Account.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion approving the request for $25,000 in funding for the Stop the Coal Train organization with
funding from the 2001 Contingency Account.
a1
a�- P
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting
Date: 1 /3/2001
AGENDA SECTION:
nsentAgenda/Organizational Business
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance
ITEM NO.
D-at
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Banking Item
PREPARED BY:
Bruce Atkinson
A. Designation of Depositories:
This is a statutory requirement (MN Statute 118A.02) that must be accomplished at the
beginning of each fiscal year. The proposed resolutions designate US (formerly First) Bank
Rochester, Wells Fargo (formerly Norwest) Bank Rochester, Marquette Bank and Trust
Company of Rochester and Rochester Bank and Trust Company as depositories of the
public funds of the City of Rochester, Minnesota.
While not depositories, the City maintains accounts with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and
Smith, Ltd., Inc., Dain Rauscher, Inc., Miller and Schroeder Financial, Inc., Wells Fargo
Investment Services, Inc., US Bank Piper Jaffray and Hopwood, Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter, Inc., and Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Inc., for the purpose of investing in direct U.S.
Government obligations or Federal Agency issues, commercial paper, banker's
acceptances, and repurchase agreements or other investments authorized by the City's
investment policy.
B. Authorizing facsimile signatures and authority to initiate investments.
Checks written against the City's General Account and Payroll Account at Wells Fargo
Bank Rochester, and Rochester Public Utilities' account will bear facsimile signatures. The
use of the signatures must be authorized through resolution by the Common Council. The
transactions are covered by a forgery bond.
Authority to initiate investments allowed under Minnesota Statutes 11 8A.01-1 18A.06, must
also be adopted.
C. Assignment of Securities:
Sufficient securities have been pledged as collateral in lieu of a depository bond by Wells
Fargo Bank Rochester and US Bank Rochester, to meet the requirements of Minnesota
statutes.
The prepared resolutions authorize the City Treasurer, or assign, to execute documents
which pledge and release securities as collateral, and to accept collateral in lieu of a
depository bond.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1 /03/01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda Public Works
40— as
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annexation — 1901 Bamber Valley Road
PREPARED BY:
M. Nigbur
The Owner of 1901 Bamber Valley Road executed a Utility Connection Agreement in June of
2000. This agreement includes specific provisions for the timing and cost of connection to the
public infrastructure as well as annexation to the City. Pursuant to this agreement the property
owner has already made connection to the City Watermain system. The annexation provision in
the Agreement allows the City to initiate the annexation at any time and it will not be contested by
the Owner. This property is entirely surrounded by City Limits and may be annexed by ordinance
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 414.033, subdivisions 2 (2).
Staff would request the City Council initiate the annexation of the 1901 Bamber Valley Road
property together with all public right-of-ways, easements, and roads within, abutting, and adjacent
to the parcel.
Salem Rcad
1901 Barber Valley R Bamber Vail Road
„..�..�
s
G � ;
3
Ma (Mood Road '"Y°" LN
WYp'F+CD RDM
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adoption of a resolution initiating the annexation of the 1901 Bamber Valley Road property together
with all public right-of-ways, easements, and roads within, abutting, and adjacent to the parcel.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: _ _ second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SG
MEETING /
DATE: 1-3-01
PT TRLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
I DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #0048 by Arnold Bomgaars to be known as Spruce
Meadows Second Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 4.35 acres of
land into 6 lots low density residential development and 1 lot for development of uses
permitted in the B-5 (Residential Commercial) zoning district. The plat also dedicates the
right-of-way for the continuation of Spruce Meadows Avenue SE into a cul-de-sac. The
property is located along the east side of 11'h Avenue SE (Co. Rd 1), north of the future
alionment of 201" Street SE and west of Bear Creek.
December 27. 2000
ITEM NO.
9-1
PREPARED BY:
Theresa Fogarty,
Planner
NOTE: Staff recommends re -wording condition #6 to provide clarification. The word "address" should be replaced
with "provide".
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 13, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat.
Mr. Wade Dumond, of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant is agreeable to
the six (6) conditions listed in the staff report.
The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat will conform with the applicable criteria with the following
conditions or modifications:
1. The Plat shall be revised:
a. Changing the extension of the roadway to "Spruce Meadows Lane SE".
2. Dedication of parkland be met via cash in lieu of land, as indicated in the memo from the City Park and
Recreation Department, dated November 27, 2000.
3. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City and construction of the 10 foot bituminous pedestrian path on Outlot A
shall be concurrent with the construction of this project.
4. Stormwater Management must be provided for this development.
5. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that outlines the
obligations of the applicant relating, but not limited to; storm water management; park dedication; traffic
improvements; pedestrian facilities and contributions for public infrastructure.
6. The Developer shall address the looping of the 8" water main and installation of a gate and valve box as
described in the memo from the Rochester Public Utilities -Water Division, dated November 21, 2000.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat #00-48 by Arnold Bomgaars to be known as
Spruce Meadows Second Subdivision with staff suggested conditions. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Werven voting nay.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated December 6, 2000.
- )NCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
Page 2 (/0
RCA T
11
Council Action Needed:
The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The
Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. A
motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the
fifteen findings for denial in paragraph 61.225 can be made.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report, dated December 6, 2000.
2. Minutes of the December 13, 2000 CPZC Meeting.
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
Chambers at the Rochester! Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
l,.
on Wednesdav, January 3, 2001 in the Council
••
va itP
�sa;�
�I'1 [
Feb9�E
P
- ldld A21dNiWll321d
• •
;�
o�e�9��
V1OUNNIN'M31UHJOM
PiPf1.:
NOISIAIO9ns ONO:)3S SMOOd3W 3DnNdS
s
2
e •
L, 0 s bill ✓ /
N
ui
• eu
y 1m,or.
a
N
•v
m
r
N I `
%y
5
dd9
Qiism
jkqd iN3WdOl3A30 1VN3N39 ' r
V10S3NNIW'll31S3H00N r
SMOGV3W 3DnNdS
r
1 a,it e
I
--- c =
N I O
i W
%J
i
Is •
.Ok •4OCH F.STFR.'I iF V
2•. �O 'U
CR'�TEti:,f U GUS'�" P
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/2B5-8232
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA 507/265-8224
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner,, WELUSEPTIC 507/2B5-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
DATE: December 6, 2000
RE: Preliminary Plat #00-48 by Arnold Bomgaars to be known as
Spruce Meadows Second Subdivision. The Plat proposes to
subdivide approximately 4.35 acres of land into 6 lots for low
density residential development and 1 lot for development of uses
permitted in the B-5 (Residential Commercial) zoning district. The
plat also dedicates the right-of-way for the continuation of Spruce
Meadows Avenue SE into a cul-de-sac. The property is located
along the east side of 1 Vh Avenue SE (Co. Rd 1), north of the
future alignment of 201h Street SE and west of Bear Creek.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Surveyors/Engineers:
Referral Comments:
Arnold Bomgaars
1530 Greenview Drive SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 31 Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
RPU Water Division
Park and Rec. Department
Rochester Public Works Department
Rochester Fire Department
Olmsted County SWCD
Planning Department - Addressing staff
Planning Department - Wetlands staff
Planning Department - Transportation staff
Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Referral Comments (8 letters)
3. Copy of Preliminary Plat
4. Spruce Meadows General Development Plan
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
144
Page 2 • •
Preliminary Plat #00-48
Spruce Meadows Second
December 7, 2000
Development Review:
Location of Property: The property is located along the east side of 11'"
Avenue SE (Co. Rd 1), north of the future alignment of
201" Street SE and west of Bear Creek.
Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single
Family) district and B-5 (Residential Commercial)
district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: This development consists of 4.35 acres of land to be
subdivided into 6 lots for single family development and
1 lot for residential commercial uses.
Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for the
continuation of one roadway labeled as "Spruce
Meadows Avenue SE".
This roadway is designed with a 50' right-of-way and a
52' cul-de-sac radius.
Since the continuation of the roadway will not intersect
into the future 20' Street SE, as indicated in the final
plat of Spruce Meadows First Subdivision, but will be
ending in a cul-de-sac, the roadway will need to be
changed to "Spruce Meadows Lane SE".
The applicant received a Design Modification to locate
the access to Lot 7 approximately 285 feet from the
intersection of the future 201" Street SE and 111" Avenue
SE (Co. Rd 1). The location of the access from 20"
Street SE to Lot 7 Is consistent with previous
discussions with the Planning Department
Transportation staff. If in the long term an
unacceptable level of conflict occurs between access
traffic from this plat and the proposed multi -family
development on the south side of the future 201" Street
SE and the through traffic on the future 20`" Street SE,
a raised median may need to be considered to control
the conflict. At this time the raised median is not
anticipated, given projected future traffic levels, once
20`" Street SE is extended.
Pedestrlan Facilities: In accordance with current City policy Pedestrian
Facilities are required for this development.
Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City and the
developer shall construct the 10 foot bituminous
pedestrian path on Outlot A, concurrent with
construction of this project.
Page 3
Preliminary Plat #00-48
Spruce Meadows Second
December 7, 2000
Drainage: The topography of this plat is fairly level and indicates
natural drainage to the east . The elevations range from
about 1,014" along the western portion of the plat to
about 1,012' along the eastern portion.
The site does not appear to be in compliance with the
City of Rochester's Erosion Control Ordinance. Gully
erosion is currently taking place along the east side of
the plat flowing towards Bear Creek.
Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved
by the City Public Works Department prior to the
submittal of the final plat.
Storm Water Management must be provided for this
development.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The original grading plan was approved in 1993.
At that time, the site was studied for wetlands and no
wetlands were found except for an area at the outlet of
the storm sewer which was exempt.
Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will need to be extended
from their present ends to accommodate this
development.
The development of Lot 7 will require the looping of the
8" water main (with associated utility easements) from
the proposed stub -out shown to connect into the
existing stub -out within the future 20'" Street SE right-
of-way.
A gate valve and box is required south of the hydrant
tee on the 8" stub -out.
Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential
development must provide spillover parking for service
vehicles and visitors. This development requires 8
spillover parking stalls. it appears as though the
additional parking can be accommodated on the
roadways and most likely within private driveways, as
well. Spillover parking requirements for Lot 7 will be
reviewed when development is proposed on the lot.
Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department recommends
that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu
of land.
General Development Plan: This property is included within the Spruce Meadows
General Development Plan (GDP), approved October,
2000.
Page 4 • •
Preliminary Plat #00-48
Spruce Meadows Second
December 7, 2000
Staff Review and Recommendation:
Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by
the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application.
This section is attached for your information.
The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request for compliance with the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including Section 61.225 of the LDM. The staff
recommends approval with the following conditions i modifications:
1. The Plat shall be revised:
a. Changing the extension of the roadway to 'Spruce Meadows Lane SE".
2. Dedication of parkland be met via cash in lieu of land, as indicated in the memo
from the City Park and Recreation Department, dated November 27, 2000.
3. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City and construction of the 10 foot bituminous
pedestrian path on Outlot A shall be concurrent with the construction of this
project.
4. Stormwater Management must provided for this development.
5. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Rochester
that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating, but not limited to; storm water
management; park dedication; traffic improvements; pedestrian facilities;
contributions for public infrastructure.
6. The Developer shall address the looping of the 8' water main and installation of a
gate and valve box as described in the memo from the Rochester Public Utilities -
Water Division, dated November 21, 2000.
Reminder to Applicant:
Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City 1 Owner Contract
for construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision.
This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15,
1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans will need to be submitted
with the final plat application, if the applicant intends to record the final plat
documents prior to completion of infrastructure improvements.
Page 5 • • q /
Preliminary Plat #00-48
Spruce Meadows Second
December 7, 2000
CITY OF ROCHESTER
ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
EXCERPTS
61.225 Finding for Land Subdivision:
The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing
a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are
made:
A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and
variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance.
B. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal
and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and
timely extension to serve future development.
C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of
the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or
adopted drainage or stormwater policies.
D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans
and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service
standards in Section 61.526.
E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and
emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each
lot for planned uses.
F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other
Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of
the subdivision.
G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a resident zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover
parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426.
H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimensions are -provided for the
purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the
development.
I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with
adopted plans, policies and regulations.
J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or
wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards.
K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of
permitted uses on adjacent properties.
L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued
development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands.
Effective May 15, 1999
qq Page 6 •
Preliminary Plat #00-48
Spruce Meadows Second
December 7, 2000
M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all
lots are developable for their designated purposes.
N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
O. That any land located within Zone A as shown as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary
and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use
and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate
drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion
potential or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future
residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance.
61.226 Conditions on Approvals:
In considering an application for development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving
body shall consider and may impose modification or conditions to the extent that such
modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225.
Effective May 15, 1999
i
TRANSPORTATION STAP
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
- 1998
2000
CITY
SD 00-02
In regards to need for a traffic study, proposed use is estimated not to exceed the
es 50 at which a TIR is
required. No other comments
CITY
Prel Plat 00-48
Spruce
Plat is consistent with discussions that have been held with applicant regarding
access locations. It is anticipated that 20" St SE will be extended eastward in the
Meadows 2
future consistent with the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan. In order to provide for
minimization of conflict between the future traffic flow on 20t' St and traffic
accessing Lot 7, the location of the access has been held as far east as possible.
This should minimize conflict between traffic queues that will build at the
intersection of 20'" St with 11 " Ave SE. It should be noted there will likely be an
access for the multi -family development on the south side of 20" St also in this
location. If in the long term an unacceptable level of conflict occurs between
access traffic and the through traffic on the future 20'" St, a raised median would
be a consideration to control this conflict, although at this time it is not anticipated
that this would be needed given projected future traffic levels on 20'h St once
extended.
IN
50 0
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
11/30/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
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 Preliminary
#00-48 on the Spruce Meadows Second Subdivision. The following are Public Works comments
on this proposal:
1. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for this subdivision.
2. Outlot A should be dedicated to the City. The developer should be required to
construct the 10 foot bituminous pedestrian path on Outlot A, concurrent with basic
construction for this project.
3. Execution of a Development Agreement is required to outline the Owner's
obligations related to, but not limited to, Stormwater Management, Park Dedication,
Traffic Improvements, Access Control, Pedestrian facilities, and Contributions for
Public Infrastructure.
4. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property to
address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this
subdivision.
Charges/fees applicable for the development of the property will be addressed in the
Development Agreement, but will include:
❖ Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1653.67 per developable acre.
Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1653.67 per developable acre.
❖ Stormwater Management Fee for participation in the City's Regional
Stormwater Plan.
Proportional Share of Infrastructure Charges Associated with 20'" St SE
11
C:\TEMP\PP#00.48.doc
we pledge, we deliver
November 21, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Preliminary Plat #00-48 by Arnold Bomgaars to be known as Spruce Meadows
Second Subdivision.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow:
1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments.
The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department
determines the applicability of these fees.
2. The development of Lot 7 will require the looping of the 8" water main (with associated
utility easements) from the proposed stub -out shown to connect into the existing stub -out
within the future 20`h St SE right-of-way.
3. A gate valve & box is required south of the hydrant tee on the 8" stub -out.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
0644A R
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Arnold Bomgaars
Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
OROCHESTER PARK AND RAREATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 27, 2000
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Preliminary Plat #00-48
Spruce Meadows 2ntl
Acreageof plat..........................................................
4.35 a
Number of dwelling units .............................................
6 units
Density factor...........................................................
.0244
Dedication...............................................................
.15 acres
Fair market value of land .............................................
$8,500/a
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
Cash in lieu of land
Applicant:
Amie Bomgaars
1530 Greenview Drive SW
OLMSTED SOIL ANRATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1485 Industrial Orive NW
Room 102
Rochester, Minnesota 55901
(507) 280-2850
Fax (507) 280-2858
MINNESOTA
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Date: November 28, 2000
To: Jennifer Garness
From: Tony Hill
RE: Preliminary Plat Review — Spruce Meadows 2nd Subdivision #00-48
Preliminary Plat Review
In response to the Preliminary Plat application for Spruce Meadows 2nd
Subdivision, we found erosion problems currently taking place within the plat and
a lack of overall sediment control measures. The site does not appear to be in
compliance with the City of Rochester's Erosion Control Ordinance.
Gully erosion is currently taking place on the eastside of the plat flowing towards
Bear Creek (Photo A). Furthermore, additional sediment control measures need
to be installed at the site in order to prevent soil from washing into the creek.
Rip -rap has been installed along the storm sewer outlet, however the entire
upland area has not yet been stabilized (Photo B).
District staff recommends that the developer and contractor work with the City of
Rochester Public Works staff to correct these problems before approval.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 285-2850.
cc: Arnold Bomgaars
David Kramer, Rochester Public Works
Denny Christopherson, Yaggy Colby Associates
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
v" , IN am E04 NT
WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Application Number: CAJ.
No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey
Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property
owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and
submitting the information as part of this application.
A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file
with the Planning Department
A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -
loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning
Department.
A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan
incorporates the approved wetland plan.
No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However,
due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine
the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying
wetlands.
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
• /
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 67
Hearing Date: December 13, 2000
WN
Ms. Baker explaine at the applicant changed the application to modify t equest.
Therefore, staff has re Iished fora new public hearing to be held on WSmber 27, 2000.
Also, revised notices hXthea
n sent to referral agencies for commen
Mr, Suk indicated that cant, Tom Hexum, asked to be he on the requests.
The applicant, Tom Hexum,
on behalf of the requests.
Mr. Lloyd Johnson, of R. L. Hexum A
the reason they resubmitted their plat
from the M-1 designation to a resider
lowland alone for borrow area for the
ponds, wetland mitigation areas, and
development would be essentially as
that Lloyd Johnson, fjW R. L. Hexum Associates, speak
es, addre d the Commission. He explained that
to cha the western 35 acres of the development
;igna ' He indicated that they would leave the
th in the area. They plan to restore it back to
storation areas. He stated that the rest of the
ally submitted.
Mr. Johnson stated that there is only t of 45 es available of the 82 acres, after taking
away highways that a/id
range hig y plan, frontage roads, off ramp, and the
upgrade of 48a' Street
Mr. Suk asked if Mr. Jto attend the De ber 27, 2000 meeting.
Mr. Johnson replied nindicated that Mr. He would be present at the
meeting.
Mr. Suk asked if one wished to be heard with regard to the rejWts. One individual
stepped forwar t indicated that she would make her presentatio ' ;December 27, 2000.
No one else a forward.
Ms. Pete on moved to continue Land Use Plan Amendment #00-0, ' Zoning District
Amen en
#00-16 by R.L. Hexum &'Associates to December 27,200 Brede
seco ed the motion. The motion carried 7-0.' `
AF
Petersson moved to continue General Development Plan#159 by R.L. Hex
rsociates to December 27, 2006. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motlod%ed
-as.
if
W4
✓� Page 3 •
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 13, 2000
Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated December 6, 2000, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Werven asked what staffs response was with regard to Tony Hill's comments on page 42 of
the staff report.
Ms. Baker responded that David Kramer, of the City Public Works Department, was listed on the
memo as receiving a copy. She explained that the enforcement of the grading and erosion in
the city is handled through the City Public Works Department.
Mr. Werven expressed concern regarding no one following up on the comment made by Tony
Hill. He questioned how the Commission should proceed, considering Mr. Hill's comments.
Ms. Baker responded that, unless there was a severe occurrence that affects other properties
that requires halting of any activity on the property, it is not relevant to the Commission's
recommendation on the preliminary plat. She explained what the Commission looks for at the
public hearings for preliminary plats. She stated that the Commission does not approve the
grading plan.
Mr. Burke asked why the comments made by Mr. Hill were included in the staff report.
Ms. Baker responded that staff includes any comments made by referral agencies in the staff
reports, unless they state that they have no objection.
Ms. Schultze asked why Mr. Hill was not present if it was of concern to the Soil and Water
Conservation District. She questioned if it is important to the Commission's review. She
expressed concern with not being able to ask Mr. Hill questions.
Ms. Baker responded that it is her opinion that his comments were not relevant to the
Commission's review of the preliminary plat.
Mr. Harford stated that, in the extreme, Mr. Hill's comments may make a difference in the design
of a subdivision. If some grading work has been done and it appears that the design needs
improvement, the Commission may want to look at a particular design for the preliminary plat
before it goes to the final plat stage. However, in this particular case, he does not foresee Mr.
Hill's comments making a difference on the design.
Mr. Wade Dumond, of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated that the
applicant is agreeable to the six (6) conditions listed in the staff report.
Mr. Dumond explained that the Soil and Water Conservation District reviews grading areas.
However, the Public Works Department is responsible to address situations/comments. He
stated that the comments have been forwarded to David Kramer and another staff person in
Public Works Department.
Mr. Burke asked if the final grading plan would address all of Mr. Hill's comments.
Page 4
• •-
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 13, 2000
Mr. Dumond responded yes.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #00-48 by Arnold Bomgaars
to be known as Spruce Meadows Second Subdivision with staff -suggested conditions.
Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Werven voting nay.
CONDITIONS:
1. The Plat shall be revised:
a Changing the extension of the roadway to "Spruce Meadows Lane SE".
2. Dedication of parkland be met via cash in lieu of land, as indicated in the memo from
the City Park and Recreation Department, dated November 27 2000.
3. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City and construction of the 10 foot bituminous
pedestrian path on Outlot A shall be concurrent with the construction of this project
4. Stormwater Management must provided for this development.
5. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Rochester
that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating, but not limited to; storm water
management; park dedication; traffic improvements pedestrian facilities;
contributions for public Infrastructure:
8. She Developer shall address the looping of the 8 . water main and installation of a
�.
gate and valve box as described in the memo from the Rochester Public Utilities -
Water Division, dated November 21, 2000. ,
Mr. John Harford ented the staff report, dated November 27, 20 the Commission. The
staff report is on file a Rochester Olmsted Planning Depart
Mr. Harford stated that Harriet op School has an inte light on their sign. He explained
that the light is to help with vandalifthHe also explaWO5 that some churches have gone
through a variance process to allow si
such instances. However, they suggest
the staff report).
indicated that staff is not concerned about
be a few standards (which are referred to in
Mr. Harford stated that heZar
Commission to e a recommendation regarding
standards that would adds of situations. He d that he would then come
back to the Commission, with specific language t the Commission could
take final action on the to
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 01-03-01
DATE: (D
AGENDA
N
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REDUCED
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
ESTER CITY LINES
ITEM NO.
?,-a
PREPARED BY:
A KNAUER W
This is a hearing to consider expansion of the eligibility criteria for reduced fare benefits on
Rochester City Lines regular route service. Under federal law transit systems receiving federal
assistance must provide half -fare benefits to persons age 65 and older, persons with disabilities
and persons with Medicare cards during off peak hours.
Locally the half fare is 50 cents for a single ride or 10 rides for $4.00. Half fares are only honored
during off peak times defined as 8:15 A.M. through 2:15 P.M. and after 6:45 P.M. weekdays and
all day Saturdays.
Currently Rochester City Lines uses proof of age, Medicare cards or ZIPS identification cards to
identify eligible persons for half -fare benefits. However, not all persons with disabilities under the
federal definition are Medicare card holders or ZIPS riders. It is proposed to modify the process
for identifying eligible persons by including persons using visible mobility aids specifically
wheelchairs and service animals and persons with an identification card issued by the
Rochester Department of Public Works based upon an application attesting to the persons
disability status. This modification is required to comply with U.S. DOT regulations.
The Citizens Advisory on Transit has recommended approval of the change.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution establishing the following criteria for determining eligibility for
half -fare benefits during off-peak times on Rochester City Lines;
Persons presenting proof of age 65 and older by drivers license or Minnesota Identification
card.
2. Medicare card holders
3. ZIPS identification card holders
4. Persons using visible mobility aid devices specifically wheelchairs and service animals.
5. Persons with disabilities presenting an identification card issued by the Rochester Department
of Public Works based on the U.S. Department of Transportation's criteria for persons with
disabilities.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
AGENDA
N
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC WORKS l;-3
INCREASE IN ZIPS FARES PREPARED BY:
A KNAUER r h
This is a public hearing to consider the following increase in fares charged on ZIPS Dial- A -Ride.
Urban Zone
Suburban Zone
Current Fares
8 rides for $10.00
5 rides for $10.00
Proposed Fares
5 rides for $10.00
no change
If approved the above changes would go into effect January 29, 2001.
The proposed fare increase is being recommended to offset the increase in operator rates
effective in 2001. The operator's hourly rate will increase from $23.93 in 2000 to $33.00 in 2001.
(Attachments A and B provide a history of the operator rates and comparisons with other
communities.) This was the first substantial increase in the operator's rate since 1995. Even with
the fare increase the local tax support was increased to fund the program. The last fare increase
was in 1996. Attachment "C" provides a summary of fare changes since ZIPS was established.
The fare increase should maintain a fare box ratio (revenues compared to cost) of 20% to 21%
through 2002. The adopted transit program calls for a 20% farebox return ratio as a performance
goal.
ZIPS Dial -A -Ride is a mandated service under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The federal
regulations specify minimums in regards to; service area, hours of service, service levels, eligibility
and fares. The regulations recognize the more personal and direct aspects of door to door service.
However, the fare cannot exceed twice the base fare charged on the regular route system. The
current base fare on Rochester City Lines is $1.00. Therefore the maximum fare on ZIPS cannot
exceed $2.00 without changing the fare on Rochester City Lines.
The Citizens Advisory on Transit has recommended approval of the increase. A summary of fares
in other selected cities is provided on Attachment "D" .
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt prepared resolution approving a fare increase on ZIPS Dial -A -Ride from 8 rides for
$10.00 o 5 rides for $10.00 for both urban and suburban service effective January 29, 2001.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
�q
ATTACHMENT A
.S
.U,00
O w 0) m rn rn N
ZZZZ
ONFP>
0 cn co en
❑wOwww
w
>
O > > > >
O
ER—m r
m
W ❑
as-oc00
ufnj O
0
w
W 0 0 0
U
M
01 Q
W J
O J J O
rn
rn U)<
J J
Q Q Q Q Q Q o �
Z
w
Ur
3:
m U) CO U)NO
O O
U
L) Q
w
wM0co(7C
'
O
❑O
nZ
w
w 2
5 S' w w
cC
w
_Z
0= 2 2 2 m m x
w
w
m_>>>> W W
U
>
> Z
❑
> >
W
Lim
Z
_Sc
= Q Z_ Z_ Z_ Z W W
w w
m
m m
m W
W m W w W w m m
3:
H
F-m
CC FCr [Cmm
w
w m
mU
Z
UU) W W
Z
Z w
w
Z w Z Z Z Z Z Z
J
O O
0 0
O O O
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0
000 O
O r o
O 0 0 0 00
O 0 0 0 00
Q
m QI
W O 01
cm 0
0) 0D7 41 O
Ol M P
< V V 'C cC O)
r r
r r r
r ri
r r r r
r N N
cV N N N N N
VJ V)
Vi Vi V3
69, V} 63
V� Vf V! 63 6%
Vi V! W.
Vi Vd V! V) V3 dj ,
J
In m
0) r
to f0 LO
aI m 07
In In 10
m m V
ll') In Ifi In N
0) 0) W m M
O N 0
M M M
0 CC
N m V m O O
Q
N m
N c0 v
V 'V <O
c0 c0 c0 c0 O
O N
N N cli m M V
N
N N N
N N N N M M
QVI
V;
613 Vl V)
V) V9 V!
6. cA fR fA Vd
Vi Vi Vf
V3 Vd V9. V)
Q
U
m m
co fn m
m co (n
m m m m m
cn U) w
m V) w cn U) 0 0
cn m
F- F- F-
F- F- F-
0 N U) (n (nF-
X
wrt
a:Xa
ma
w=w=Ir
crux
w xcr x
❑
❑
❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑
000 m
U
W
H
w
F-
W w
F- F-
W
❑ ❑ �...
w
❑ ❑ ❑
W W
w w w
O
Q
Q
Q¢
❑❑¢
❑❑❑Q
QQ
QQQ W cn
~
O
0
00
ZZF-
ZZZF
FF
FFF Zm
O
0 0
w w 0
w w W 0
00
coo Q
w
❑w
❑ww
xxw
❑xxxw
❑ www ❑oaa}
❑ww
Z
m Z
m Z Z
W W Z
m w w W Z
m Z Z
m Z Z Z m m O M
..r
m
W O
rnm
N M
mmm
V' to m
mmm
m 0 O—
m m m m m
C to
0)m
0)
m O N
U-)m0 0o0
0)
a) 0)
morn
0)m0)
rnmm0)rn
MOm
r- m03o o00
r
r r
r r
r r r
r r r r r
W r r
0 r r N N N N
03
O
01
m
r
r N
ATTACHMENT B -
DIAL -A -RIDE COSTS / SOUTHERN MINNESOTA
As of 2000 Most Recent Estimates Available
The number of months reported
varies.
PER VEHICLE
SYSTEM HOUR
PER PASSENGER
MOWER COUNTY $ 44.48
$
7.69
THREE RIVERS $ 27.64
-$
11.44
FAIRIBAULT $ 31.22
$
4.46
LACRESENT $ 45.74
$
11.23
NORTHFIELD $ 26.60
$
3.84
RED WING $ 34.29
$
5.53
SEMCAC $ 26.24
$
4.40
STEEL COUNTY $ 26.83
$
4.43
STEWARTVILLE $ 24.39
$ "_.
5.13
WINONA $ 19.22
$
2.24
ROCHESTER $ 26.65
$
7.23
DATA PROVIDED BY MNDOT.
NOTE: COST PER PASSENGER IS EFFECTED BY POPULATION DENSITY,
DISTANCE BETWEEN REQUESTS, ETC.
vv ATTACHMENT C
ZIPS DIAL -A -RIDE! FARE HISTORY
DATE
CHANGE
' JULY, 1976
ESTABLISHED FARE OF $.50 FOR SINGLE RIDE
FEBRUARY, 1979
INCREASED FARE 10 RIDES FOR $5.50
OCTOBER, 1979
ESTABLISHED EVENING AND SATURDAY PASS
5 RIDES FOR $5.00
JANUARY, 1983
INCREASED FARE 10 RIDES $6.00
SEPTEMBER, 1986
INCREASED FARE 10 RIDES FOR $7.00
DECEMBER, 1991
ESTABLISHED NEW FARE ZONES:
URBAN ZONE 10 RIDES $10.00
SUBURBAN ZONE 8 RIDES $10.00
JANUARY, 1996
INCREASED FARES ZONES:
URBAN ZONE 8 RIDES $10.00
SUBURBAN ZONE 5 RIDES $10.00
0
0O
�
�
D
r
Z
r-
o
=
`0
o
m
�
p
o
(n
m
m
z
en
<n
en
to cn
to cn
F»
m
m
C30
r
rl
ma
0
n X
—i
nz
m
m
0
0
!
0!
!!
0
C
o
0
0
0
cn
00
(nn
m
fA
fA
EA di
di 4A
EA
_{
m
N
z
cn
o
-n
cNi
X
CA
<-n vA
to to
to t»
t»
p
a
r
D
cTt
O N
O O
:�4 N
N
O
0
0 to
O O
cn m
0
m
Cl) c
0 -a
m
D
-n
CO D7
-n >
ca
m
X z03
n
o
�c
<
x
z
z
�
m
o
Z
z
N
CD
0
n
0
0
0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Reports & Recommendations
ORIGINATING DEP
City Administrator
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law related to Appeal # 00-04 of
Variance Request #00-32
�� i
MEETING
DATE: 1 /3/01
ITEM NO.
IC
PREPARED BY:
T. Spaeth
At the December 18, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council considered an appeal to the Rochester Zoning Board of
Appeals' denial of Mr. Frank Kottschade's variance request involving nine conditions of approval imposed upon the
approval of General Development Plan # 151.
Upon review of the record, the City Attorney has prepared findings of fact and conclusions of law and order relating to
said appeal to variance request. Attached for the Council's review are the findings of fact prepared by the City
Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
Copy of City Attorney prepared Findings of fact and Conclusions of law dated December 27, 2000
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
The Council may adopt, modify or revise the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order as needed.
%,uUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
20
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 27, 2000
TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold — City Administrator
FROM: Terry L. Adkins — Rochester City Attorney TLPS
SUBJECT: Findings of Fact for Kottschade Appeal #00-04 of Variance Request #00-32
On December 18, 2000, the Council considered an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals'
denial of Frank Kottschade's variance request involving nine conditions of approval imposed
upon the approval of General Development Plan #151. The original variance request is
identified as #00-32 and the appeal of the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision is identified as
#00-04.
Following the hearing, the Council instructed the City Attorney to prepare draft Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order and to bring this document back to the Council for its review and
consideration. As further instructed by the Council, I prepared the Findings document so as to
uphold the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision.
I enclose that draft document for presentation to the Council. The Council may adopt, reject or
modify the document as it pleases.
Enclosure
In Re: Appeal #00-04 by
Franklin Kottschade
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law,
and Order
On December 18, 2000, the Common Council of the City of Rochester held a public
hearing, upon notice to the public, to hear the appeal of Franklin Kottschade (hereinafter
"Appellant") concerning a decision of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals denying Variance
Request #00-32. The Variance Request occurred in response to the City Council's imposition of
nine conditions upon its approval of the Applicant's General Development Plan #151. The
,pplicant requested a variance of either (1) the nine conditions of approval placed upon GDP
#151, or (2) those provisions of the Rochester Code of Ordinances under which the Council
imposed the nine conditions of approval upon GDP #151.
On October 4, 2000, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied Variance Request #00-32.
Appellant appealed the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision to the City Council. The appeal
hearing came before the Council on November 20, 2000. At that time, the Council remanded
the issue to the Zoning Board of Appeals since the Board failed to adopt findings of fact within
the time frame required by Section 60.414 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances ("R.C.O."). On
December 6, 2000, the Zoning Board of Appeals, following the remand, denied Variance
Request #00-32 for a second time. The Council's December 181' hearing followed the Zoning
Board of Appeals' December 61' action.
i
q�
11
At the December 18'h public hearing, the Applicant and William Tointon spoke in favor of
the variance. Members of the city staff, including Senior Planner Baker, Planning Director
Wheeler, Assistant City Administrator Neumann, Land Development Manager Nigbur and
Public Works Director Freese spoke in favor of the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision to deny
the variance. The Council considered all material submitted in its agenda packet (attached
hereto and identified as "Agenda Record") and all material formally submitted into the record by
the Applicant (attached hereto and identified as "Applicant's Record").
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Common Council of the City of
Rochester does hereby make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In early 2000, the Applicant submitted General Development Plan #151 (401h
Street) (hereinafter "GDP #151") to the Council for approval. GDP #151 proposed low density
residential development for the property located south of 40'h Street S.W., east of 11th Avenue
S.W., and west of Highway 63 ("Site'). Agenda Record at 33-4. (The Site's legal description is
found at Agenda Record at 12.)
2. The Council applied the criteria found at R.C.O. §61.215 in its analysis of GDP
#151. Agenda Record at 40, 54-65.
3. On July 5, 2000, the Council adopted Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order concerning GDP #151. Agenda Record at 54-65.
2
4. By its July 5th action, the Council determined that GDP #151 satisfied the
requirements of R.C.O. §61.215 if the Applicant satisfied the following nine conditions:
A. The GDP should be revised to include the following:
• 50 feet of right-of-way shown as being dedicated for 401h Street S.W.,
and 11th Avenue S.W., consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare
Plan;
• Pedestrian facilities along the east side of 11th Avenue S.W., and the
south side of 40`h Street S.W., consistent with the adopted
Thoroughfare Plan;
• The site details (haul roads, stockpiles, proposed excavated ponds) of
the approved conditional use permits covering this property and the
adjacent properties;
B. Stormwater management must be provided for this development
C. Controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 40'h Street
S.W., with the exception of the private street access that is shown across
from Willow Heights Drive S.W., and along 11'h Avenue S.W., with the
exception of the private roadway shown in the southwest corner of the
GDP. The existing access immediately east of Willow Court S.W., must
be closed upon construction of the private roadway.
D. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that
outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to,
stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, SAC and WAC fees and
contributions for public infrastructure improvements and contributions for
future reconstruction of 40th Street S.E Current City policy for substandard
street requires a contribution of $30.00 per foot of frontage for residential
developments. The City may create a Transportation Improvement
District in the area that may result in a capacity component being added to
the substandard street reconstruction charge.
E. If the development of this property occurs prior to the reconstruction of
40`h Street S.W., grading of this property must be compatible with the
street profile and cross -sections being proposed for the 40th Street S.W.,
reconstruction in the Street Layout Plan. The private roadway
connections to public streets must meet City intersection sight line
standards.
3
�q
M
F. The applicant agrees to dedicate a total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the
centerline of 40 Street S.W. This dedication must be provided with the
first plat of this development or when the City notifies the owner that a
roadway improvement project is programmed, whichever comes first.
G. The applicant must agree to meet the parkland dedication requirement for
this development in the form of cash in lieu of land. The development has
a parkland dedication requirement of approximately 1.76 acres based on
a maximum density of six units/acres.
H. A revised GDP shall be filed with the Planning Department reflecting all
required modifications.
The private roadway running parallel to 401h Street S.W., be relocated on
the GDP outside of the proposed street profile and cross sections for 401h
Street S.W., as indicated on the preliminary plans prepared for 40th Street
S.W., as reflected in the street plan of the City of Rochester's current 6-year
Capital Improvement Program.
Agenda Record at 59-61.
5. At the time the Applicant submitted GDP #151 to the City Council, he did not
request a variance from any provision of the Rochester Code of Ordinances. In addition, he did
not, as part of the review process for GDP #151, submit any conceptual development design
drawings for the City's review or comment.
6. R.C.O. §60.734 permitted the Applicant to appeal the Council's July 5th Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order to District Court within 30 days of his receipt of the July 5th
document. Agenda Record at 35. The Applicant did not exercise his right to appeal the
Council's July 5`h decision. Agenda Record at 186-87.
7. On September 12, 2000, the Applicant filed Variance Request #00-32 seeking to
vary either (a) the nine conditions of approval imposed by the Council on July 5, 2000, or (b) the
ordinances under which the Council imposed the nine conditions which the Applicant listed and
4
/ ,5- /
ascribed as follows:
A. 61.215(4),(5),(6),(7) (Criteria for Approval of General Development Plan)
B. 64.230, et. seq. (Determining Right of Way Width)
C. 64.133 (Funding Required Improvements)
D. 64.134 (Dedication Required)
E. 64.137 (Cost Sharing)
F. 64.138 (Drainage Easements Required)
G. 64.310 (Storm Water Run Off)
H. 64.227 (Trail Thoroughfare and Sidewalks)
1. 64.122 (Street Design Features)
J. 64.250 (Development Agreement with Regard to Street Easement and
Right of Way Designations)
K. 64.400, et. seq. (Park Land Dedication)
L. 64.240 (Private Roadways)
M. 64.220, et. seq. (Public Roadway and Trail Thoroughfare Design
Standards)
Agenda Record at 39.
8. On October 4, 2000, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing to
onsider Applicant's Variance Request #00-32. Following the close of the hearing, the Board
voted to deny Variance Request #00-32. The Board adopted findings of fact at its next meeting
on November 1, 2000. These findings of fact were not adopted within 21 days of its public
hearing as required by R.C.O. §60.414. Agenda Record at 26-7.
9. On October 26, 2000, the Applicant appealed the Zoning Board of Appeals'
decision to the Common Council as provided for in R.C.O. §60.733(2). The matter came before
the Council on November 20, 2000. Since the Applicant alleged a violation of, and since the
facts indicated a lack of compliance with, R.C.O. §60.414, the Council remanded the matter
back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a new hearing and adoption of findings of fact within the
required time period. Agenda Record at 201-06.
s
q(P
10. On December 6, 2000, the Zoning Board of Appeals held another hearing on
Variance Request #00-32 and, following the hearing, denied the request. At its December 6t
public hearing, the Board adopted findings of fact in support of its decision. Agenda Record at
11-6. Pursuant to the Applicant's October 26, 2000, appeal, the matter was returned to the
Common Council.
11. The Council considered the Applicant's appeal on December 18, 2000.
12. At the December 4h public hearing, the Applicant's engineering representative,
William Tointon, testified that he and members of his firm prepared two drawings depicting a
"Before" and "After" comparison of the Applicant's proposed development on the Site. The
"Before" drawing depicted a proposed development design of the Site prior to the Council's
imposition of nine conditions on its approval of GDP #151. The "After drawing depicted the
proposed development design of the Site after the Council's imposition of nine conditions on its
approval of GDP #151.
13. Mr. Tointon stated that the "Before' drawing indicated 104 townhomes with two
different styles: twinplexes and eight -unit townhomes. The "After' drawing indicated 26
townhomes. He stated that condition #1 (right of way needed for 40t' Street S.W.) and condition
#5 (grading of the site to be compatible with the future elevation of 40t' Street S.W., and 11I'
Avenue S.W.) had the greatest impact upon the amount of developable land on the Site. He
stated that, following imposition of the nine conditions, there was insufficient depth on the Site to
allow the construction of most of the "Before" drawing's 104 townhomes.
6
14. Mr. Tointon stated that, with respect to the "Before" and "After" drawings, "I can tell
you that Mr. Masterpole in our office did design this project in accordance with the appropriate
standards of your Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance." (The "Land Development
Manual and Zoning Ordinance" are those portions of the Rochester Code of Ordinances
addressing land use and zoning issues.)
15. In response to a question, Mr. Tointon agreed with the City Attorney's summary of
Mr. Tointon's earlier testimony that Mr. Masterpole prepared the "Before" drawing in compliance
with the provisions of the Land Development Manual. After being shown page 7 of the Council
Agenda (which listed the 13 sections of the Land Development Manual that the Applicant sought
to vary in Variance Request #00-32; See Agenda Record at 27-8;), the City Attorney asked how
Mr. Masterpole could prepare the "Before" drawing in compliance with the Land Development
lanual without complying with the 13 sections of the Land Development Manual for which the
Applicant was now seeking a variance. Mr. Tointon stated, "[w]hat I said was that he prepared
the illustrative map which is not the general development plan that was submitted to the City.
This is not the plan that was submitted, this was a plan that was prepared to show how the site
would, how the general development plan would be utilized."
16. In response to a question from the City Attorney, Mr. Tointon stated there was an
alternative design concept involving access to the site not from 40"' Street or 11 h Avenue S.W.,
but from another access to the south. He stated this alternative involved securing several
permits from the Department of Natural Resources and from other entities. He described the
permit processes involved as being difficult, but indicated the Applicant had not attempted to
secure any of the permits. He stated that acquisition of these permits would be required in order
7
rA
to integrate development of the Site with the adjacent parcels (which are also owned by the
Applicant).
17. In response to a question from the Assistant City Administrator, Mr. Tointon stated
that the 'Before" and "After drawings have not been approved by the Planning Department and
are "illustrative examples' of how they anticipate the development of the Site might occur with
and without the nine conditions.
18. At the December 18, 2000, public hearing, the Applicant testified that he acquired
the property in question in 1992. See also Agenda Record at 6. The Applicant also testified that
the nine conditions of approval imposed by the City create for him an undue hardship since the
conditions prevent him from receiving an economic return on his development property. Agenda
Record at 7, 21.
19. The Applicant stated the estimated total development costs per unit for the
"Before" drawing conception is $22,378. The estimated total development costs per unit for the
"After" drawing conception is $89,511. In the "After drawing, the $89,511 figure increases to
about $125,000 after including land value costs, transaction costs, developer overhead costs,
legal expenses and developer profit. Based upon the "After' drawing conception of 26 units and
the total cost of $125,000 per unit, the sale price of a townhome unit would be in the $500,000 -
$600,000 range. This is based upon the "Five times" rule which states the selling price should
be five times the land costs so as to allow for the improvement to be built upon the land.
Agenda Record at 5, 226.
20. The Applicant provided real estate information showing the current retail market for
townhomes. According to that information, the highest selling price for a townhome was
a
55,000. Because the market would not allow a $500,000 - $600,000 sale price, the Applicant
claimed he was unable to put his land to a reasonable use and, as such, incurred an undue
hardship. Agenda Record at 5.
21. The Applicant stated he has current mining permits for this site. He stated that up
front costs of $384,000 would be needed in order to open up the mining operation. Without a
very large construction project, he stated it was not economically feasible to perform the mining
operation. Agenda Record at 5-6.
22. The Applicant stated he is unaware of any developer who has experienced the
imposition of conditions similar to those imposed in GDP #151.
23. In response to a question, Public Works Director stated that the listing of
improvement items on Agenda Record 226 is driven by the configuration, size and frontage
(out of the Applicant's property. The same computation used in determining the cost of public
improvements for the Applicant's development is used for other developments. The actual
configuration, size and frontage layout of the property determines the cost for each improvement
requirement.
24. In response to a question, the Applicant stated that the development cost amount
of $22,378 per unit under the "Before" scenario is on the high side of the retail market for
townhomes. After adding in overhead costs, the figure of $22,378 becomes about $50,000. He
stated that the application of the "Five Times" rule puts the selling cost of each unit at about
$250,000 which starts to "price it out."
25. Council member Evans asked whether there was one or two conditions in
particular which the Applicant found unduly burdensome in his desire to develop the site. The
9
a
Applicant stated that the Council's 1999 adoption of a new subdivision regulation ordinance
created this development problem for him and caused development problems in general for
other developers. In particular, the Applicant stated that the use of development agreements
caused "an unholy and unruly situation" and has resulted in an increase in the cost of housing in
Rochester. The Applicant stated, "[c]an I point to one? The truth is they are all cumulative."
The Applicant stated, "I am not asking for special favors for myself as a developer. I want to be
treated no different than any other developer."
26. Throughout his testimony, the Applicant consistently requested a variance for all
nine conditions. He never singled out any particular conditions nor did he discuss any
alternatives to any of the conditions.
27. In response to a question from Council Member Evans, Senior Planner Baker
stated that the "After" drawing's depiction, and the provision of only 26 townhome units,
appeared to be unrealistic. She stated that the "After" scenario depicted the private right-of-way
within the development to be 50 feet in width. She stated, "I don't recall ever seeing a 50 foot
wide right of way shown for a private roadway serving a fairly low density development."
28. Senior Planner Baker indicated the "After" drawing depicted two styles of
townhome units. She indicated there are other styles which might work in this development.
29. Senior Planner Baker indicated "Another thing that I think could be considered
here is if there are other performance standards which are prohibiting a higher density from
being achieved such as a setback, a landscape area, a recreation space, an off-street parking
standard. Are there minimum variances to other standards that could be considered to achieve
a density similar to 104 units or somewhere in that range without completely waiving what are
10
81
iinimum standards of our ordinance that other developers are subject to? ... Certainly seems
there are other ways to take a look at this property."
30. Council Member Evans stated, "[w]e have a lot of things that come through here
sometimes with even more conditions than nine on it and sometimes I wonder how developers
can make them work but they always make them work."
31. Several council members indicated a desire to meet with the Applicant and city
staff in an attempt to discuss and work out a possible compromise on applicable performance
standards. It was pointed out that either the City or the developer can initiate an amendment to
a general development plan.
32. Land Development Manager Nigbur stated that in 1992, when the Applicant
purchased this property, all but three of the nine conditions ( and their underlying ordinance
rovision) were in existence. He stated, "So, these are all things he should have been aware of
as the buyer of the land." The three conditions are #D, #E and #l.
33. Senior Planner Baker stated, "[t]his property owner purchased the property in
1992. Effective January 1, 1992, we had many of these regulations already in place in very
similar format to what we have today." She also stated, "[t]he granting of this variance request
may be materially detrimental to the public welfare and may adversely affect the implementation
of the comprehensive plan by not providing for dedication of lands for roadway improvements,
providing for pedestrian facilities, providing for park land dedication, providing for stormwater
management facilities, and providing for the extension of public utilities in compliance with
minimum development standards and requirements of the adopted plans and ordinances of the
city. ... Most of the conditions that were placed on this general development plan were simply
11
r.
because the development itself did not meet the minimum design standards." Two members of
the Zoning Board of Appeals made similar statements during the Zoning Board of Appeals'
hearings. Agenda Record at 9.
34. R.C.O. §60.410 states that, pursuant to state law as found in Minn. Stat. §462.357,
subd. 6, there is the opportunity "to vary the literal provisions of the ordinance ... by the creation
of the variance procedure."
35. The Common Council reviewed the application for the variance and considered the
criteria provided in §60.417. This ordinance provides that the Council may grant a variance to
the provisions of the Land Development Manual if it finds that:
a) there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity,
narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical
conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within
the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; and
b) the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved;
and
c) the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially
injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan; and
d) the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable
economic use of the property.
36. R.C.O. §60.417 also provides that extraordinary conditions or circumstances
cannot be the result of an action of the applicant or property owner in control of the property.
37. R.C.O. §60.417 also provides that a variance cannot be granted if the
development of the parcel in question can be integrated with the development of adjacent
12
03
arcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable
economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of the ordinance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This variance appeal is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O.
§60.733.
2. R.C.O §60.410 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances does not provide for a
variance from conditions of approval imposed upon a general development plan. Instead, a
party seeking to contest the validity of the Council's imposition of any condition of approval
placed upon a general development plan must utilize the appellate procedure provided for in
R.C.O. §60.734 (appeal to district court).
3. The Zoning Board of Appeals correctly concluded that it lacked the authority to
vary the conditions of approval imposed upon a general development plan.
4. R.C.O. §60.410 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances does provide for a variance
from one or more of the ordinances which formed the basis for the Council's imposition of
conditions upon GDP #151.
5. R.C.O. §60.417 provides the criteria in the analysis of a request for a variance.
6. Since the granting of a variance to the Applicant allows him to use the property in a
manner forbidden by the applicable ordinances, he has a "heavy burden" to show he has
satisfied all of the criteria provided in R.C.O. §60.417. See Luger v. City of Burnsville, 295
N.W.2d 609,612 (Minn. 1980).
13
7. Based upon a substantial amount, and a preponderance, of the testimony and
evidence received at the December 18, 2000, public hearing, the Common Council determines
that the Applicant failed to show that there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances
peculiar to his property and which do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the
same class of zoning district. The Applicant's generalization that the nine conditions placed
upon GDP #151 made his proposed development economically unfeasible because of increased
costs and decreased developable land does not satisfy his burden of proof as to extraordinary
conditions or circumstances. The Applicant acquired this property in 1992 and there was no
testimony that the property characteristics changed in any way since that time. Furthermore, the
Applicant did not show any evidence that the City arbitrarily applied any provision of R.C.O.
§61.215 (Criteria for General Development Plans) to some developers, but not to others.
Instead, there is testimony that the ordinances which gave rise to the nine conditions are applied
equally to all development occurring within the City.
8. Based upon a substantial amount, and a preponderance, of the testimony and
evidence received at the December 18, 2000, public hearing, the Common Council determines
that the Applicant failed to show that a variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of his
property. The Applicant has not provided any information to demonstrate how any of the
ordinance provisions pursuant to which the nine conditions were imposed operate to prevent him
from completing his proposed development. The Applicant's generalization that the nine
conditions placed upon GDP #151 have a "cumulative" effect and make his proposed
development economically unfeasible because of increased costs and decreased developable
land does not satisfy his burden of proof. Economic considerations alone do not constitute an
14
gG- /
idue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Minn.Stat. § 462,357, subd. 6(2),
The Applicant's principal testimony on this point is the "After' drawing conception plan
which shows a decrease in the depth of the lots, and a corresponding decrease in the number of
townhome units which could be constructed, following implementation of the Council's nine
conditions. However, there is evidence that there are other alternatives available to the
Applicant, including a waiver of performance standards and other styles of townhomes, which
might allow additional townhome units. There is also evidence that there is an alternative design
involving access from the south. The Applicant did not provide any information as to why these
alternatives are not feasible.
There is also evidence that the comparison between the "Before" drawing and the "After'
awing is unreliable. It was stated the "Before" drawing complied with all of the provisions of the
Land Development Manual portion of the Rochester Code of Ordinances. Yet, the "Before'
drawing does not consider those 13 ordinance provisions of the Land Development Manual
upon which the Council relied in imposing the nine conditions of approval upon GDP #151 and
which are now the subject of Applicant's variance request. The "Before" drawing is simply a
depiction of a possible site design which can only occur if the 13 ordinance provisions at issue in
Variance Request #00-32 are waived and no additional conditions are imposed.
Furthermore, the Applicant stated that under the "Before' drawing scenario, the resulting
sale price of $250,000 per townhome was on the high side of the current retail market and, as
such, may not be marketable. In other words, even assuming the absence of the nine
conditions, the Applicant believes he would have a difficult time selling his townhomes at a price
is
3
that makes economic sense.
Finally, the Applicant failed to show that he would like to use his property in a reasonable
manner which is otherwise prohibited by the Rochester Code of Ordinances. There are potential
alternatives available to the Applicant which may allow him to accomplish his development
goals. There may be other minimal performance standards which could be varied to allow the
Applicant to achieve his desired development goal.
9. Based upon a substantial amount, and a preponderance, of the testimony and
evidence received at the December 18, 2000, public hearing, the Common Council determines
that the Applicant failed to show that a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, the variance is in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and the variance will not adversely affect
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant provided no information concerning
the impact of this variance upon other property in the area. To the contrary, there was testimony
that the granting of the variance would impede the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of
the dedication of lands for roadway improvements and the provision of pedestrian facilities,
parkland, stormwater management facilities, and the extension of public utilities.
10. Based upon a substantial amount, and a preponderance, of the testimony and
evidence received at the December 18, 2000, public hearing, the Common Council determines
that the Applicant failed to show that the requested variance is the minimum necessary to
provide reasonable economic use of the property. The Applicant has not provided any
information to demonstrate how any of the objectionable ordinance provisions prevent him from
completing his proposed development. The Applicant's generalization that the nine conditions
16
I
9%
laced upon GDP #151 have a "cumulative" effect and make his proposed development
economically unfeasible because of increased costs and decreased developable land does not
satisfy his burden of proof. Economic considerations alone do not constitute an undue hardship
if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Minn.Stat. § 462.357,
subd. 6(2).
The Applicant's principal testimony on this point is the "After" drawing conception plan
which shows a decrease in the depth of the lots, and a corresponding decrease in the number of
townhome units which could be constructed, following implementation of the Council's nine
conditions. However, there is evidence that there are other alternatives available to the
Applicant, including a waiver of performance standards and other styles of townhomes, which
might allow additional townhome units.
There is also evidence that the comparison between the "Before" drawing and the "After"
drawing is unreliable. It was stated the "Before" drawing complied with all of the provisions of the
Land Development Manual portion of the Rochester Code of Ordinances. Yet, the "Before"
drawing does not consider those 13 ordinance provisions of the Land Development Manual
upon which the Council relied in imposing the nine conditions of approval upon GDP #151 and
which are now the subject of Applicant's variance request. The "Before" drawing is simply a
depiction of a possible site design which can only occur if the 13 ordinance provisions at issue in
Variance Request #00-32 are waived and no additional conditions are imposed.
Furthermore, the Applicant stated that under the "Before" drawing scenario, the resulting
sale price of $250,000 per townhome was on the high side of the current retail market and, as
such, may not be marketable. In other words, even assuming the absence of the nine
17
FA
conditions, the Applicant believes he would have a difficult time selling his townhomes at a price
that makes economic sense.
11. Based upon a substantial amount, and a preponderance, of the testimony and
evidence received at the December 18, 2000, public hearing, the Common Council determined
that the Applicant failed to show that any extraordinary conditions or circumstances were not the
result of the Applicant's action. There is uncontroverted evidence in the record indicating that
ordinance provisions which support the imposition of six of the nine conditions of approval were
in place and in effect prior to the time the Applicant acquired the property. A landowner who
purchases property with actual or constructive knowledge that his desired use is not permitted by
applicable ordinances is not entitled to a variance since any resulting hardship is self-inflicted.
See Hedlund v. City of Maplewood, 366 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
12. Based upon a substantial amount, and a preponderance, of the testimony and
evidence received at the December 18, 2000, public hearing, the Common Council determined
that the granting of the variance in this case does not promote the public health, safety, morals,
or general welfare. If granted, the variance would deprive the public of lands needed for
roadway improvements, the provision of pedestrian facilities, parkland, stormwater management
facilities, and the extension of public utilities.
13. Based upon a substantial amount, and a preponderance, of the testimony and
evidence received at the December 18, 2000, public hearing, the Common Council determined
that Applicant's variance request is unreasonable. The Applicant could have approached City
staff regarding his concerns with the nine conditions of approval in light of the "Before" and
"After" drawings. The Applicant could have sought city staff assistance in working with
18
n
Wormance standards the varying of which might accomplish Applicant's development goals.
However, there is no evidence indicating the Applicant attempted to bring his concerns to City
staff. Furthermore, there is no evidence indicating the Applicant sought an amendment to GDP
#151 which could have accomplished his development goals by making changes to his
development design or by seeking variances to performance standards.
14. Based upon a substantial amount, and a preponderance, of the testimony and
evidence received at the December 18, 2000, public hearing, the Common Council determines
that the Applicant failed to show that the development of the Site cannot be integrated with the
development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide
for the reasonable use of the total property in a manner consistent with the provisions of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances. There is evidence that achieving such development integration
ould be difficult because of the need for various state permits in crossing a creek and city
permits to allow development within a flood area. However, a simple claim that "it can be done,
but it wouldn't be easy' does not satisfy the Applicant's heavy burden to show compliance with
this variance criteria. The Applicant simply has not provided sufficient information as to the
economic plausibility or viability of development integration between the Site and the adjacent
parcels.
15. Based upon a substantial amount, and a preponderance, of the testimony and
evidence received at the December 18, 2000, public hearing, the Common Council determined
that the Applicant failed to satisfy all of the criteria needed for the granting of a variance as
required by R.C.O. §60.417 and, as such, the Council must deny Variance Request #00-32.
19
r.
16. Based upon a substantial amount, and a preponderance, of the testimony and
evidence received at the December 18, 2000, public hearing, the Common Council determined
that there is no legal basis to reverse the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals and that such
decision should be affirmed consistent with this Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
6-1
ORDER
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §60.733, does hereby
affirm the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Appeal #00-04 and does hereby deny the
variance requested by the Appellant from the (a) nine conditions of approval imposed upon the
approval of GDP #151 and (b) provisions of the Rochester Code of Ordinances under which the
Council imposed the nine conditions of approval upon GDP #151.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this day of January, 2001.
Fof.mnMVadance. Kotts00-04
20
John Hunziker, President of the
Rochester City Council
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 1
DATE: 1/3/01
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
G
1 ,P,' DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
TERRY ADKINS
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, aS appropriate.
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
None Scheduled
G.4. MISCELLANEOUS
•
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: