HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/2001_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNCIUBOARD CHAMBERS
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 22 November 5, 2001
Regular Adjourned 7:00 P.M.
PAGE
1 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
2-3 1. Petition for Extension of Sanitary Sewer — Thein Property and Estate
Sections 8 and 9 of Marion Township.
D)
CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1.
Approval of Minutes
5-6
2.
Appointment to Rochester Civic Music Board
7-16
3.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Related to Road Constructors
Inc. Status as a Responsible and Reliable Bidder for Future City
Contracts
17
4.
Settlement Agreement in Kenneth Middendorf v. City of Rochester
Concerning Worker's Compensation Benefits
18
5.
Amend Certain Provisions of the Rochester Code of Ordinances to
Make the Fine Amounts Consistent With State Law
19-21
6.
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
22
7.
Accounts Payable
23
8.
Authorization to Complete Assessment of GASB 34 Impact
24
9.
Resolution Accepting the Offer of the Minnesota Public Facilities
Authority to Purchase a $2.5 Million GO Sales Tax Revenue Note of
2001
25-32
10.
City Ordinance 106.A.18, 106A.21 Amendments
33-41
11.
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
42
12.
Sole Source Procurement of Equipment: Sanitary Sewer Flow
Monitoring Equipment
43
13.
Professional Services for Rose Harbor Regional Stormwater Pond (J-
9868)
44
14.
Removal of Traffic Semi-diverter 26t' Street & Northern Viola Lane
NE
45
15.
Parking Restriction on Technology Drive NW,
46-47
16.
Diagonal Parking near Central Park.
GryCouncil Meeting
November 5, 2001
Page 2
48
17.
49
18.
50
19.
51
20.
52
21.
53
54
55
56
57
5B
59
60
61
62
E)
63-71
72-89
90-110
111-134
135-142
143-148
149 .
22.
23.
24.
Truck Loading Zone Td Avenue SW/200 Block
Land Acquisition — Storm Water Facilities to Serve Section 7 (J2468)
Land Acquisition — Settlement for Forest Hills Sewer Project (J9748)
Land Acquisition — Settlement for 50th Avenue NW (J9718)
Real Estate — Settlement Agreement for Right of Way Acquisition for
the Badger Run Sewer Project — (J9745)
Development Agreement — Bandel Business Center
Speed Zone Study 415t Street NW: TH 52 to CSAH 22
Owner Contract — Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Civic Drive Plaza —
Jack Prow Property (J9829)
25. Advertisement for Bids, Demolition of Buildings at Eastwood Village,
(J2068)
26. Stormwater Management Agreement
27. Owner Contract — Basic Construction to Serve the 37 h Street
Theatres/ Shopko North Site (J9809)
28. Owner Contract — Basic Construction in Badger Ridge Second
Subdivision (J9779)
29. Contribution Agreement — Brad & Lori Thatcher Property (Lots 1, 2,
and 3, Block 1, Forest Hills 5"' Subdivision)
30. Bus Procurement Services Contract
31. Advertise of Bids for the Digester Gas Piping (J4382) and Hot Water
Loop Piping (J4388)
HEARINGS
1. Final Plat #01-10 by Arcon Development to be known as Boulder
Ridge located along the east side of Bandel Road NW, south of
Bandel North First Subdivision
2. Final Plat #01-44 by Carriage Homes XVII, Inc. to be known as Fox
Ridge Townhomes First CIC #159 First Supplement located west and
north of Meadow Lakes Drive NW and south of 3'd Street
3. Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 located south
of 40t' Street S.W., west of TH 63 and east of 11"' Avenue S.W.
4. Type 111, Phase I, Appeal #01-02 of the Rochester Zoning Board of
Appeals denial to create a parcel through the Meets and Bounds
Subdivision located at 218 Cheval Lane N.E.
5. Final Plat #01-45 by Rodney Younge to be known as Eagle Ridge
Fifth Subdivision located along the east side of Aspen Place S.W. and
Eagle Nest Lane S.W. at the end of 4"' Street S.W.
6. Final Plat #01-46 by THE Realty to be known as Northwest Plaza
Fifth Subdivision located north of Rogan Shoes and south of Econo
Foods in the Northwest Plaza Shopping Center
7. Final Plat #01-47 by Oppidan Investment Company to be known as
Northwest Place Sixth Subdivision located north of Rogan Shoes and
south of Econo Foods in the Northwest Plaza Shopping Center
Gry Council Meeting
November 5, 2001
Page 3
156-158 8.
Vacation Petition #01-11 by Joseph and Wendy Postier and Western
Walls, Inc. to vacate a platted right-of-way along Lot 1, Block 2, Rose
Harbor 2"d Subdivision and along Lot 1, block 1, Rose Harbor 2"d
Subdivision
159-166 9.
Comprehensive Plan police n Affordable Housing and Diversity
167-171 10.
City Initiated Text Amendment #01-11 to amend Section 61,211 of
the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to
add that an upzoning to the R-2 zoning district requires a General
Development Plan
172 11.
Enlargement of Development District No. 20, and Amend and Restate
the Development Program and the Tx Increment Financing Plan for
Tax Increment District No. 20-1
173 12.
Establishment of Development District No. 22, adopt the
Development program for the Development District and Establish the
Development Distract Tax Increment Financing District No. 22-1
174 13.
Issuance of Bonds for the Weatherstone Townhomes Apartments
Project in the amount of of $9,000,000 and Phase II in the amount of
$20,000,000
175-176 14.
Proposed Establishment of Residential Permit Parking Zone #6
(Edison Neighborhood) on 8"' Avenue 400 Block, 10'hAvenue 600 &
700 Blocks, 7d' Street 900 Block, and 8h Street 900 Block S.W.
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
177 1.
Development Assistance Agreement with Bigelow and Sons
Enterprises Inc. for the single-family home construction in Kingsbury
Hills Second Subd.
178-181 2.
Amendments to RCO 107 - Gambling
182
G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/5/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A
ITEM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of
their choice. The following guidelines apply:
• This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has
already been held as a public hearing.
• This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes.
• Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting.
• Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month.
• Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum.
• Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing.
J
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/5/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Letters and Petitions
City Clerk
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Petition for Extension of Sanitary Sewer - Thien Property and Estate -
Sections 8 and 9 of Marion Township
PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
A petition has been received from Yaggy-Colby Associates on behalf of Platinum Development
Group and Dennis Thein for extension of sanitary sewer to serve the Dennis Thein property and
the Thein Estate in Sections 8 and 9 of Marion Township.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to adopt the prepared resolution referring the petition for extension of sanitary sewer to
Sections 8 and 9 of Marion Township (Thein property and estate) to the Public Works Department
for a feasibility report.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
ENGINEERS
A RC N IT ECTS J
50N Y EY 0 R5
October 17, 2001
Ms. Judy Scherr, City Clerk
City of Rochester LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
201 SE 4th Street PLANNERS
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Dennis Thein Property & Thein Estate
Rochester, Minnesota
Dear Judy: ROCHESTER OFFI(
On the behalf of Platinum Development Group and Mr. Dennis Thein, we would like to
request that the city council initiate a Project Feasibility Report for the extension of
sanitary sewer to serve both the Dennis Thein Property and the Thein Estate in Sections 8
and 9, Marion Township. Platinum Development Group has an agreement to purchase
the Thein Estate property.
Sincerely,
YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES
Wade C. DuMond, ASLA
Department Head of Land Development
WCD
YCA #7658 LD2
cc: Richard Freese
Mark Hemann
Don Staley
Dennis Thein
717 Third Avenue
Rochester, MN 559
507-288-64
Fax..,. _J8-50
MASON CITY OFFII
641-424-63
DELAFIELD OFFII
262-640-68
Equal Opportunity Fmployrr
yaggy.com
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting
DATE: 11-05-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO:
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D -1-31
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
G. NEUMANN
This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can
approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the
Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed
from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council.
The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs:
D-1. Approval of Minutes
D-2. , Appointment to Rochester Civic Music Board
D-3. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Related to Road Constructors Inc. Status as a Responsible
and Reliable Bidder for Future City Contracts.
D-4. Settlement Agreement in Kenneth Middendorf v. City of Rochester Concerning Worker's
Compensation Benefits.
D-5. Amend Certain Provisions of the Rochester Code of Ordinances to Make the Fine Amounts
Consistent With State Law.
D-6. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
D-7. Accounts Payable
D-8. Authorization to Complete Assessment of GASB 34 Impact
Resolution Accepting the Offer of the Minneosta Public Facilities Authority to Purchase a $2.5
Million GO Sales Tax Revenue Note of 2001.
D-10. City Ordinance 106.A.18, 106A.21 Amendments
D-11. Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
D-12. Sole Source Procurement of Equipment:: Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Equipment.
D.13 Professional Services for Rose Harbor Regional Stormwater Pond (J-9868)
D-14. Removal of Traffic Semi-diverter 26t' Street & Northern Viola Lane NE.
D.15. Parking Restriction on Technology Drive NW.
D.16. Diagonal Parking near Central Park.
D-17. Truck Loading Zone P Avenue SW/200 Block.
D-18, Land Acquisition — Storm Water Facilities to Serve Section 7 (J2468)
D-19. Land Acquisition — Settlement for Forest Hills Sewer Sewer Project (J9748)
D.20. Land Acquisition — Settlement for 50th Avenue NW (J9718)
D.21. Real Estate — Settlement Agreement for Right of Way Acquisition for the Badger Run Sewer
Project — (J9745)
D-22. Development Agreement — Bandel Business Center
D-23.' Speed Zone Study 41st Street NW: TH 52 to CSAH 22
D-24. Owner Contract — Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Civic Drive Plaza — Jack Prow Property (J9829)
D.25. Advertisement for Bids, Demolition of Buildings at Eastwood Village, (J2068)
D-26. Stormwater Management Agreement
D-27. Owner Contract — Basic Construction to Serve the 37t' Street Theatres/ Shopko North Site (J9809)
D-28. Owner Contract— Basic Construction in Badger Ridge Second Subdivision (J9779)
4629. Contribution Agreement — Brad & Lori Thatcher Property (Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Forest Hills 5th
Subdivision)
D-30. Bus Procurement Services Contract
D-31. Advertise of Bids for the Digester Gas Piping (J4382) and Hot Water Loop Piping (J4388)
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
J /
MEETING
DATE: 11/5/01
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Organizational Business
Mayor's Office
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Appointment to Rochester Civic Music Board
Mayor Canfield
I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the
Rochester Civic Music Board:
Jackie Brown
2028 Cassidy Drive NE
Ms. Brown will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Mike Kelsey.
The three year term will run to December 2003.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
flavor Chock Canfield M"
201 Ith Street SE - Room 281 All-AHERIC.0 T',
Rochester, JIN 53904-3782
Monk-: (5071285-8080 Fax: 607)287-7979
CITY OF ROCHESTER
VOLUNTEER APPLI::'ATION
NAME: JRLt<ItY L'Y44\N
ADDRESS: gxjb CT$h10y tet... P)G --
PHONE: sus .zs3-5037 HOME ;*-7-00
CO YOU RESIDE WITHIN P.00HESTER CITY LIMITS? YE3 V NO --,-
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: tn,y,,,fbw&a— 0
I AM SEEKING VOLUNTAR',' SERVICE ON RL'CJj�jTC�"` e,IVI(/ Mdhlci
BECAUSE: .1- WOULY WK,�-- A'J-_0?P017V1'Ty �(0 -4QU C —
TIi3_" i'IOG j(vim--' C.eMMUNt?q 2� c4LJ37C1-, —
uyI (i P'IIki1 C/ A5 _A4 7 _ Clpo'LTAIlly T9 _
i1nirJ(r- k 0+t0Deti >%"J*-C�ii
g war N1`J _
T4� coMMVNIT
?TEASESE P—ROVV1 E BACKGROUND INFORMA'.IGN ;EDUCATION, SFEr_*AL IZirER STS,
ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVE";ENT) A:tach additions.1
information, if desired.
L RzzztV My 370k fl.ae. M001%1i,-� hlia7L'J uNtJv`1�71
10 1g5e) WtTt A PAO,- . tN P01.1TIG�L,_
A MINV`,, IN WOALC0 Ak) AAAl Wkl
h1 tL
,yPyV� f�� 9 YcMS . S CL)Av\,u �J ANCrJItz�
DATE SUBMITTED: q I v SIGNED:
Return cc: Office Of th' —
201 4th Street SE
Rochester, MN 5 904-3782
tttti- ttttttittitt t f. t t t t t t i t t t l t t t t t t t t l t t t i t t i•:fro#at*i#:-4I.t
DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
TERM EXPIRATION:
OTHER DATA:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1115101
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
City Administrator
T1 _ 3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law related to Road Constructors
PREPARED BY:
T. Spaeth
Inc. status as a responsible and reliable bidder for future City contracts
At the October 15, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing to consider Road Constructors Inc.
status as a responsible and reliable bidder for future City contracts
Upon review of the record, the City Attorney has prepared findings of fact and conclusions of law and order relating to
said matter. 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 October 29, 2001.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
The Council may adopt, modify or revise the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order as needed.
A 0 ?-4 l
�1
A4L
N 1
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 29, 2001
TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold — City Administrator el
FROM: Terry L. Adkins — Rochester City Attorney
SUBJECT: Findings of Fact for Road Constructors
On October 15, 2001, the Council held a public hearing to consider Road Constructors' status as
a responsible and reliable bidder for future City of Rochester public contracts. Following the
hearing, the Council directed me 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 (1) determine there was
insufficient information currently available as to whether Road Constructors was a responsible
and reliable bidder, and (2) extend for another year the one year probationary status of Road
Constructors.
I enclose that draft document for presentation to the Council. The Council may adopt, reject or
modify the document as it pleases.
Enclosure
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
In Re: Road Constructors, Inc.,
Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law,
and Order
On October 15, 2001, the Common Council of the City of Rochester held a public
hearing, upon notice to the public, to consider whether Road Constructors, Inc., (hereinafter
"RCI") is a reliable and responsible bidder for purposes of future City of Rochester public works
contracts.
At the public hearing, an attorney representing neighbors who live in the Foxcroft area of
ochester testified concerning two cases of sewer backup that occurred during the summer of
2000. One case involved the Foxcroft area and another case involved the 13t' Avenue and 48"'
Street N.W., area. RCI's legal representative also appeared and testified about the status of the
litigation involving these sewer backup claims. The Council considered the information provided
at the October 151h public hearing a copy of which is attached, incorporated herein by reference
and identified as Exhibit A. The Council also considered a report issued by the Department of
Public Works. That information is attached, incorporated herein by reference and identified as
Exhibit B. Finally, the Council considered its September 18, 2000, Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Order concerning the same issue. A copy of the September 18, 2000, Findings
document is incorporated herein by reference, attached and is identified as Exhibit C.
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. At the October 15, 2001, city council meeting, the issue of awarding future public
contracts came before the Common Council pursuant to the state's and the city home rule
charter's competitive bidding requirements.
2. Section 12.06 of the Rochester Home Rule Charter states that public contracts
must be awarded "to the lowest reliable and responsible bidder."
3. At the October 15, 2001, council meeting, attorney Jeffrey Mintz, representing four
claimants in the Foxcroft area of Rochester, appeared before the Council and stated that RCI
was not a reliable and responsible bidder. The attorney based his claim on the lack of a
settlement in these claims as well as other claims involving the Foxcroft area and the 13t'
Avenue/48t' Street N.W., area. The attomey noted that on September 6, 2000, the Council
considered this matter and, as a result of its public hearing, concluded that it will monitor, for a
time period of one year, the manner by which RCI performs public work pursuant to public
contracts awarded by the City of Rochester.
4. As the one year time period has expired, the Council concluded that there should
be an opportunity for all interested parties, including RCI and its Insurer, to present information
to the Council as to RCI's performance of public contracts during the past year.
5. Attorney Mintz stated that there are several claims pending from the sewer backup
cases occurring during the summer of 2000. He stated that RCI was causing numerous delays
in processing the litigation the majority of which were at the request of RCI's legal counsel. As
an example, he stated RCI failed to produce all existing documents in response to a request for
the production of all such documents. This resulted in one of many delays in moving the
litigation through the process. He stated his clients are incurring significant costs and expenses
in attempting to recover their damages. Yet, thus far, his clients are no closer to any settlement
of the claims. As a result, he asked the Council to renew its one year monitoring of RCI's
performance of the City of Rochester's public contracts.
6. Ken Moen, attorney for RCI, testified that this is an attempt to exert political
pressure in pending litigation. He stated such an attempt is inappropriate in this forum and
after left to the courts. He indicated the claims were the subject of several lawsuits. Those
lawsuits are proceeding and the time spent thus far in prosecuting the case is not unusual for
this type of case. In cases where there is a dispute as to damages and liability, one year's time
without a settlement of the claims is typical.
7. Mr. Moen stated that RCI has obtained the required insurance coverage and the
insurer has fulfilled its obligation by defending the City and RCI. As such, he stated, it is the
insurer and not RCI that determines the strategy and legal responses in this litigation. He told
the Council to let the litigation take its course.
S. Mr. Moen indicated the Department of Public Works report indicated RCI
performed well in some contracts and satisfactory in others. As such, there is no reason to
continue this probationary period. Instead, he stated, the City should let the litigation process
run its course.
9. In response to a question as to whether RCI is contacting the parties or its insurer
in order to find a way to speed up the process, Mr. Moen stated that he routinely advises his
clients to stay away from contacts with any of the parties involved in pending litigation. Any
competent attorney will tell the client to avoid contact with parties, including the insurance
company's attorney. It is in court and it is being handled.
10. Council member Marcoux indicated her frustration with RCI's decision not to
contact its insurance company and ask for quick resolution of a claim that is the subject of
extensive public attention.
11. Council member 5enjem noted that, when all goes well, RCI does a good job and
there is no problem. But, when something goes wrong, there is a question whether RCI is doing
all it could do to quickly process and resolve the claims. Mr. Moen stated the judicial system just
doesn't work that efficiently and time is required where there is a dispute as to liability and
damages. If there is a continuation of any probationary period, Mr. Moen asked that the scope
be broadened to include other bidders.
12. Mac Hamilton appeared and stated that he is a party to many contracts in which
RCI is a party. He has found RCI to be very helpful, effective and a contractor who delivers
quality work.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This matter is properly before the Common Council pursuant to Section 12.06 of
the City of Rochester Home Rule Charter.
2. This matter is also properly before the Common Council pursuant to numerous
Minnesota court cases holding that cities enjoy reasonable discretion in determining the lowest
responsible bidder and that the lowest bid is not necessarily the lowest responsible bidder. See
e.q., Otter Tail Power Co. v. Village of Elbow Lake, 49 N.W.2d 197, 201 (Minn. 1951).
3. The Council concludes that it does not have the authority to determine the
negligence claims present in this case. A city council does not have the responsibility or
obligation to determine who is responsible for the June 1, 2000, sewage backup cases in the
ea of 48th Street and 13'h Avenue N.W. Instead, these claims can only be resolved through
the legal system.
4. The Council concludes, however, that it does have the authority to inquire as to the
manner in which public work is performed by those who are awarded a public contract pursuant
to the state's and city's competitive bidding laws. These considerations make up, at least in part,
the phrase "the lowest reliable and responsible bidder" as used in Section 12.06 of the
Rochester Home Rule Charter. Those to whom public contracts are awarded in order to perform
public projects for the good and benefit of the general public are acting as agents for and on
behalf of the City of Rochester and must be held to the high standard demanded by the citizens
of Rochester. Any sub -standard method of operation or lack of good interpersonal skills reflects
poorly on the City and the members of the Common Council. Any communication to the
affected property owners as to what happened, what is being done and what can be expected to
occur in the future, as limited in scope as it might be, is better than no communication at all.
5. Based upon the substantial amount of testimony received at the public hearing, the
Common Council concludes there is a basis for concern as to the manner in which RCI
responded to private citizens and city officials concerning the sewage backup incident occurring
on June 1, 2000, in the area of 48th Street and 13'h Avenue N.W. Private property owners and
city officials did not receive prompt and helpful information from RCI concerning the June 1st
sewage backup incident. Furthermore, RCI has not made any effort to persuade its insurance
company to quickly and effectively resolve these claims.
6. Based upon the substantial amount of testimony received at the public hearing, the
Common Council determines that, although there is a basis for concern as to the manner in
which RCI handled communications with private property owners and the City in response to this
sewage backup and its contacts with its insurance company, there is insufficient evidence
showing RCI to be an unreliable and irresponsible bidder. The testimony is unclear and
equivocal as to RCI's demeanor and approach to the affected property owners. The affected
property owners claim that RCI and its insurer failed to perform their public contract with the
public's interest in mind when it ignored them and the damages to their home, failed to return
phone calls, failed to provide helpful information, failed to physically appear and inspect the
damage, failed to meet or discuss the incident with the City of Rochester Common Council, and
failed to make good faith efforts to persuade its insurance company to quickly and efficiently
resolve these claims. RCI claims that it satisfied those contractual obligations imposed by the
City, including obtaining the necessary bond and insurance coverage, and tendering the affected
)perty owners' claims to its insurer. RCI also claims that its response to requests for a public
discussion of this incident were tempered by the filing of the claims and legal counsel's advice to
avoid public statements. RCI's stated that once it receives claims for damages, the Insurer,
rather than RCI, controls the handling, processing and resolution of the claims. If there was a
lack of communication problem with affected property owners and the City, the problem rests
with the Insurer rather than RCI.
7. Because of the Council's concern, the Council concludes that it will monitor, for a
time period of one year, the manner by which RCI performs public work pursuant to public
contracts awarded by the City of Rochester. The Council encourages RCI, and its insurer, to
reexamine its method of dealing with the public and with City officials, and to determine ways to
improve communication skills. The Council also encourages RCI, and its insurer, to make every
`ort to resolve these claims as quickly and efficiently as possible so that the matter can come
to a satisfactory conclusion. During the one year time period, the Council reserves the ability to
revisit the issue of RCI's reliability and responsibility to perform public work on a particular public
project should additional or new information be presented to the Council.
ORDER
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to Section 12.06 of the
Rochester Home Rule Charter, does determine that Road Constructors, Inc., is eligible to be the
lowest reliable and responsible bidder for future public contract projects.
The Council further orders that, for a time period of one year, it will monitor the manner by
which RCI performs public work pursuant to public contracts awarded by the City of Rochester
and reserves the right to revisit this issue upon presentation of additional relevant information.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this day of November, 2001.
John Hunziker, President of the
Rochester City Council
Fof.zone%Resp Bidder. Road02
• FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
,4SENT AGENDA
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
,
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approve Settlement Agreement in Kenneth Middendorf v City of
PREPARED BY:
J
Rnchester concerning worker's compensation benefits
TERRY ADKINS
ZL41'
On January 26, 1999, city employee Kenneth Middendorf sustained a personal injury within the scope of his
city employment (thoracic and lumbar spine, right inguinal hernia and left knee conditions). From that date
until December 26, 2000, the City paid the employee all applicable workers' compensation benefits. Since
December 26 h, the City has refused to continue those payments contending that the employee could return
to city employment in a different capacity. (The City wanted the employee to fill the Pre Plan Assistant
position within the Fire Department.) The employee disagreed contending he was not able to return to city
employment. Instead, he found a different job which paid considerably less than the Pre Plan Assistant
position. The reduced salary of this different job exposed the City to a much higher amount of disability
benefits for the employee. Both parties were headed towards a workers' compensation hearing.
Instead, the parties reached a compromise settlement. By the terms of the settlement, the City will only pay
the employee $10,000 for the benefits due since December 26b' (which is a 50% reduction of the claimed
amount). Furthermore, any future workers' compensation benefits paid by the City to the employee will be
I based on the salary of the Pre Plan Assistant position within the Fire Department dp-pite the fact that the
employee will not fill that position. This is a "full, final and complete settlement" which precludes any future
refits other than the future disability benefits discussed above and the medical expenses.
I worked closely with Finance Department personnel in reaching this settlement. In my opinion, this is an
appropriate settlement as it reduces the City's worker's compensation exposure and its financial
obligations. I am especially pleased with the incorporation of the Pre Plan Assistant position for purposes
of future workers' compensation disability benefits although the employee will not fill that position. I
recommend approval of the Settlement Agreement.
P�ted
Council Action Requested
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Settlement Agreement in the case entitled Kenneth
Middendorf v. City of Rochester and to authorize the Mayor, City Clerk and City Attorney to execute the
Agreement and any other legal documents required to implement the resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION: Moeon by: second by: to:
MEETING
DATE: 11 /5/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
' --sent Agenda
City Attorney's Office
-D —,'
it izi.I DESCRIPTION: Request to amend certain provisions of the Rochester Code of
PREPARED BY:
Ordinances to make the fine amounts consistent with state law.
David Goslee
State law has been amended to increase the amount of fines that may be imposed for the different levels of
offenses. State law also authorizes cities to impose fines at this same level. Under state law,
misdemeanors carry a maximum penalty of up to a $1000 fine and up to 90 days in jail, and petty
misdemeanors carry a maximum penalty of a $300 fine. The provisions of the Rochester Code of
Ordinances that provide for criminal penalties currently have maximum fines of $700 for misdemeanors and
$100 for petty misdemeanors. The proposed ordinance would increase these fines to be consistent with
those authorized by state law.
This increase in maximum fine amounts is not likely to have a significant impact on the sentences imposed
for ordinance violations. The judges in Olmsted County have adopted a fine and bail schedule that
identifies a "standard disposition" for most of these violations. The opportunity to ask for a higher fine,
however, is a prosecution tool that this office can use in the more egregious cases where a more significant
penalty is appropriate.
Cnuncil Action Requested:
Adopt the prepared ordinance amending those provisions of the Rochester Code of Ordinances relating to
imposition of criminal fines to increase the fines to an amount consistent with state law.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/5/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLI?RK
�\
ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS AC HVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DONNA J SCHOTI'
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.
FIREWORKS
Lori Line Music
222 Minnetonka Ave
Wayzata, Mn. 55391
Fireworks for Concert 12/23/01 AT
Mayo Civic Center
30 Civic Center Dr SE
Rochester, Mn. 55904
GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT
Dover Firefighters Relief Assn.
311 West Park
Dover, Mn. 55929 FOR
Rochescheers Country Pub
320 1" Ave SW
Rochester, Mn. 55902
Dover Firefighters Relief Assn
311 West Park
Dover, Mn. 55929 FOR
Aviary Restaurant
4320 Hwy 52 North
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Dover Firefighters Relief Assn (RENEWALS)
311 West Park
Dover, Mn, 55929
Crown Restaurant & Lounge
1408 2nd St SW
Wright Stuff Restaurant
7600 Hel erson Dr SW - Airport
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
PAGE
NOVEMBER 5, 2001
Comfort Inn & Conference Center
1625 S Bdwy
Riptide Bar & Grill
530 11" Ave NW
Rookies Sports Grill & Bar
1517 16" St SW
William T, McCoy post 92
American Legion
315 151 Ave NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
GAMBLING — TEMPORARY
Rochester Area Disabled Athletics & Recreation
539 N Bdwy
Rochester, Mn. 55906
Raffle 1/20/02 AT
Mayo Civic Center — Ballroom
30 Civic Center Dr SE
Rochester, Mn. 55904
Rochester Area Disabled Athletics & Recreation
539 N Bdwy
Rochester, Mn. 55906
Raffle 2/23/02 AT
R.A.D.A.R. Office
Rochester Area Builders Inc.
3400 E. River Rd NE
Rochester, Mo. 55906
Raffle 2/3/02 AT
Mayo Civic Center
30 Civic Center Dr SE
Rochester, Mn. 55904
Rochester Figure Skating Club
21 Elton Hills Dr NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Raffle 1/21/01
Children's Place Nursery School
3307 55" St NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Raffle 12/8 — 12/10/01
Rochester Area Family Y
709 15` Ave SW
Rochester, Mn. 55902
Raffle 12/31/01 AT
LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
PAGE
NOVEMBER 5, 2001
Radisson Plaza Hotel
150 S. Bdwy
Rochester, Mo. 55904
MASTER INSTALLER
Craig Brogan
810 34'h Ave Ct NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
SEWER & DRAINS
Bill Kraus
PO Box 8361
Rochester, Mn. 55903
SOUND AMPLIFICATION
Veterans Day Celebration
Soldiers Field Memorial
Soldiers Field
Rochester, Mn. 55902
CITY ACTIVITIES
Minnesota Bible College
920 Mayowood Rd SW
Rochester, Mo. 55902
Live Drive Through Nativity
Veterans Day Celebration
Soldiers Field Memorial
Soldiers Field
Rochester, Mn. 55902
11/11/01 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM
11/30/thru 12/1/01
11/11/01 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
h
MEETING''
DATE: 11 /5101
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance Department
ITEM NO.
LJ _ I-1
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Approval of Accounts Payable
PREPARED By:
Dale Martinson
Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable
(submitted separately) in the amount of $4,524,107.84.
Less: Any exceptions
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/5/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Routine Business / Consent Agenda
Finance Department
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Authorization to Complete Assessment of GASB 34 Impact
PREPARED BY:
Dale Martinson
To comply with "generally accepted accounting standards" in our financial reporting, we are required to
implement the "GASB 34" pronouncement in our year-end 2002 statement. This pronouncement is
clearly the most far-reaching and comprehensive change to our reporting standards that we have ever
been required to comply with.
We intend to request some money in the 2002 budget request for consulting assistance to address the
many issues associated with reporting changes under the GASB 34. I contacted our current
audit/consulting firm, Smith Schafer& Associates for a quote. Unfortunately, the impacts are so far-
reaching, that we cannot get a solid quote until we have completed a thorough assessment and indicated
just how we intend to address each of the many changes required. Decisions on how we implement
have a significant impact on how much work will be involved to implement. Additionally, some of the
decisions on this need to be made before we start our 2002 operations so transactions can be properly
accounted for under the new rules.
We received an estimate of $10,000 to $12,000 in audit consulting assistance just to complete the
assessment portion. I have attached the "top level" item by item listing to give an idea of the scope of
this project. This portion would assess the impacts, provide documentation of the decisions made for
how we will comply, and provide a work plan with task assignments and timelines necessary to meet
the reporting deadlines. The completed assessment would also help us determine what is reasonable for
our own staff to try to accomplish versus what items would be more efficient to have completed by an
outside firm or firms.
I attempted to offer ways to reduce the cost of this assessment, but in reviewing the thousands of items
that must be documented and addressed, I concede that this will take more time than I had originally
thought. I believe this assessment is important to complete now, both to be sure we do not miss an
important step in the conversion to the new reporting model, and also to document our decisions and
reasoning on why we implemented it in the method we did. It will also help us get a better handle on
the estimated full cost of implementation.
As these additional services were not contemplated for 2001, we will need to request contingency
funding for the estimated $10,000 to $12,000 cost.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize additional professional services from Smith Schafer & Associates for a complete GASB 34
assessment with funding come from the Contingency Account.
Ito
W"re: U71001a.1 I,g4r-Yw�l was ! GC.4 A y7iP rpunc�� .SC�A�'/LF�y •
J
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1115101
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Routine Business / Consent Agenda
Finance Department
n 9
cV
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Accepting the Offer Of the Minnesota Public Facilities
PREPARED BY:
Authority to Purchase a $2.5 Million GO Sales Tax Revenue Note of 2001
Dale Martinson
The Department of Transportation(DOT) and the State Public Facilities Authority (PFA) have both
approved the City's request for loan funding of the 50°' Avenue Project. However, the repayment
sources of GO levy and MSA funding were determined not to be allowable for this loan due to State
limitations on using State revenues (MSA) for State -issued debt without bonding bill authority.
We are therefore proposing to shift $2.5 million of our GO sales tax bonding authority and its associated
repayment to the 50tb Avenue Project and out of the Hwy 52 project. We would then utilize the tax levy
and internal funding originally slated for this 50d' Avenue project to pay for this amount of the Hwy 52
project.
The language used in the sales tax legislation is broad enough under "roadway improvements" to clearly
give the council authority to use it on 50d' Avenue. The net result would not cost the City any more for
either project and would allow 50d' Avenue to proceed in a timely manner. The costs would actually be
much lower as the interest rate on this PFA loan is offered at 2.83%, or 1.5% below triple AAA
municipal bond rates through 2021. They have estimated this rate will actually save the City taxpayers
about $471,000 over issuing our own debt on this project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the attached resolution accepting the terms of the loan offered by PFA, issuing the GO Sales
Tax Pledge, and authorizing execution of the associated documents.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/5/01
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Police
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: CITY ORDINANCE 106A.18, 106A.21 AMENDMENTS
PREPARED BY:
Roger Peterson
It is requested that City of Rochester ordinances pertaining to dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs be
amended as indicated on the attached documents.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval of amendments to city ordinance 101A.18 and 106A.21.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to:
Chapter 106A —Animals
106A.18. Dangerous Dogs. Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance,
the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings given them.
(a) "Dangerous dog" means any dog that has:
(1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being
on public or private property; or
(2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's
property; or
(3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has been
sent notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively
bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or other domestic
animals.
(b) 'Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that:
(1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public
or private property; or
(2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person upon the streets,
sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's
property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or
(3) has a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack without
provocation causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety or humans
or other domestic animals.
(c) 'Proper enclosure" means securely confined indoors or in an enclosure which
has flooring that prevents digging, sides which prevent chewing or exit through
them, secured with a covering which prevents escape and provides protection
from the elements. This enclosure must be locked. A porch, patio, house,
garage or other structure that cannot be locked or has walls, windows or doors
that are not substantial enough to prevent the escape of the dog shall not be
considered a proper enclosure.
(d) "Owner" means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or department
possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having care, custody or
control of a dog.
May 8, 1998 - update
313
Chapter 106A —Animals
Subd. 2. Notice of Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous Dogs. If after an investigation
conducted by an animal control officer or police officer, it is determined that a dog is potentially
dangerous or dangerous according to the criteria described in 106A.18 Subd. 1 (a) or (b), the
Animal Control Unit will serve a notice of intent to declare the dog potentially dangerous or
dangerous dog on the owner of the dog in question. This notice shall inform the owner of this
designation, the basis for the determination, the procedures for contesting the designation as
described in Subd. 3 and the result of the failure to contest the designation as described in
Subd. 4.
Subd. 3(a). Contesting Declaration of Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dogs. If the
owner of a dog has received a notice of intent to declare a dog as a potentially dangerous or
dangerous dog, the owner may request that a hearing be conducted to determine whether or
not such a designation is justified. This request must be made in writing and delivered to the
supervisor of the animal control unit within 14 days of receipt of the notice of intent to declare
a dog as potentially dangerous or dangerous.
Subd. 3(b). Initial Review. Upon receipt of such request, the supervisor of the animal
control unit will forward the request along with all necessary supporting documentation to the
City Attorney. The City Attorney will make an initial review of the evidence surrounding the
notice to determine if there is sufficient evidence supporting the designation to convene a
hearing of the Animal Control Review Panel. If there is insufficient evidence supporting the
designation, the City Attorney shall withdraw the designation and none of the requirements of
this ordinance applying to dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs shall apply to the dog in
question. If there is sufficient evidence that the Animal Control Review Panel could uphold the
designation, the City Attorney will cause this notice to be brought to the attention of the
Review Panel that will conduct the hearing.
Subd. 3(c). Hearing Procedure. The Animal Control Review Panel will consist of the
Council President, the council member representing the area of the City in which the owner
resides, and a veterinarian. The panel will schedule a hearing and may call witnesses and
review documents as needed to make a determination on the issue. Owners shall have the
right to present evidence on their behalf and to cross-examine any witnesses. A simple
majority of the members of the panel is necessary for a finding that the dog is either
dangerous or potentially dangerous. The burden of proof is on Animal Control. A finding
supporting a designation of dangerous or potentially dangerous dog must be proven by a
preponderance of the evidence. The decision of the Animal Control Review Panel shall be in
writing and shall indicate the reasons for the findings. A copy of the findings shall be provided
to Animal Control and the dog owner.
Subd. 3(d). Effect of Findings. If the panel finds there is sufficient basis to declare a dog
as potentially dangerous or dangerous, that finding will serve as notice to the owner that the
dog is in fact a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog and the owner must immediately
May 8, 1998 -update
314
Chapter 106A—Animals
comply with all applicable requirements of this chapter or immediately cause the animal to be
humanely destroyed or removed from the City limits.
Subd. 3(e). Appeal. If the owner of the dog disputes the decision of the Animal Control
Review Panel, the owner shall have the right to appeal the decision to the Rochester City
Council. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of the panel's ruling. If
the owner of the dog disputes the findings of the City Council, the owner may appeal to the
Minnesota Court of Appeals as provided by state law.
Subd. 3(f). Mayor to Appoint Veterinarian and Substitute Panel Members. The Mayor of
the City of Rochester shall appoint a veterinarian to serve on the hearing panel on a voluntary
basis. Such appointment shall continue in effect until the appointee resigns or is replaced by
the Mayor. In the event the veterinarian is temporarily unavailable or has a personal interest
in the outcome of the proceeding, the mayor may appoint another veterinarian to replace the
initial appointee on the Panel. In addition, in the event the city council president or relevant
councilmember is temporarily unavailable or has a personal interest in the outcome of the
proceeding, the mayor may appoint other members of the city council or city staff to sit in their
place.
Subd. 4. Failure to Contest Notice of Intent to Declare. If the owner of a dog receives a
notice from the Animal Control Unit of the intent to declare the dog as potentially dangerous or
dangerous, and the owner fails to contest that notice within 14 days, the owner shall be
considered as having forfeited the right to the hearing described in subd. 3 and as having
consented to the designation of the dog as potentially dangerous or dangerous by default.
The Animal Control Unit will then issue a declaration of dangerous or potentially dangerous
dog to the owner and the owner must immediately comply with all applicable requirements of
this chapter or cause the dog to be humanely destroyed or removed from the City.
Subd. 5. Dangerous Dog Designation Review. Beginning six months after a dog is
declared a dangerous dog, an owner may request annually that the Animal Control Review
Panel review the designation. The owner must provide evidence that the dog's behavior has
changed due to the dog's age, neutering, environment, completion of obedience training that
includes modification of aggressive behavior, or other factors. It the Animal Control Review
Panel finds sufficient evidence that the dog's behavior has changed, the authority may rescind
the dangerous dog designation.
Subd. 6, Registration. No person may own, possess, keep, harbor, maintain or
otherwise have a dangerous dog or a potentially dangerous dog in the City unless the dog is
currently registered as provided in this section.
Subd. 7. The City Clerk shall issue an annual certificate of registration to the owner of
the dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog if the owner presents sufficient evidence that:
May 8, 1998 -update
315
Chapter 106A —Animals
(a) a proper enclosure exists for the dangerous dog and all accesses to the
premises are posted with clearly visible warning signs issued or approved by
the Animal Control Unit, that there is a dangerous dog on the property;
(b) a surety bond to be held by the City Clerk has been issued by a surety
company authorized to conduct business in this state in a form acceptable to
the City Clerk and the City Attorney in the sum of at least $50,000, payable to
any person injured by the potentially dangerous/dangerous dog, or a policy of
liability insurance has been issued by an insurance company authorized to
conduct business in this state in the amount of at least $50,000, insuring the
owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the potentially dangerous/dangerous
dog;
(c) the owner has paid the annual registration fee as provided for in this section;
and
C(d) the owner has had microchip identification implanted in the dangerous dog as
( required under Minn. Stat. §347.515.
Subd. 7. Fees. The City may charge the owner an annual fee, in addition to any regular
dog licensing fees, to obtain a certificate of registration for a dangerous dog or a potentially
dangerous dog under this section. Fees may also be charged for signs that are designated as
the official symbols for posting and may be purchased from the City Clerk. These fees shall
be set by resolution of the City Council.
Subd. 8. Tag. A dangerous or potentially dangerous dog registered under this section
must have a tag, issued by the City Clerk, identifying the dog as dangerous. This tag must be
affixed to the dog's collar. The collar must be worn by the dog at all times.
Subd. 9. Seizure of Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Violations. An
animal control officer or any police officer may immediately seize any dangerous or potentially
dangerous dog and/or issue a citation to the owner of any dangerous dog or potentially
dangerous dog if:
(a) 14 days after the owner has received notice that the dog is potentially
dangerous or dangerous, the dog is not validly registered under subdivision 6;
or
(b) the dog is not maintained in a proper enclosure; or
May 8, 1998 -update
316
Chapter 106A—Animals
(c) the dog is outside the proper enclosure and is not muzzled and restrained by a
substantial chain or leash and under the physical restraint of a responsible
person; or
(d) 14 days after the owner has received notice that the dog is dangerous or
potentially dangerous, the owner does not secure the proper liability insurance
or surety bond as required in 106A.18 subd. 5(b); or
(e) after the owner has been notified that the dog is dangerous or potentially
dangerous, the dog bites or attacks a person or domestic animal.
Subd. 10. Confiscation and Destruction of Dangerous Dogs. If the owner of a
dangerous dog is convicted of a crime for which the dog was originally seized, the court may
order that the dog be confiscated and destroyed in a proper and human manner, and that the
owner pay the costs incurred in the confiscating, confining, and destroying the dog.
Subd. 11. Exemptions. Dogs may not be declared dangerous or potentially dangerous if
the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person;
(a) who was at the time of injury committing or attempting to commit a willful
trespass or other tort or crime upon the premises occupied by the dog; or
(b) who was provoking, tormenting, teasing, abusing or assaulting the dog or who
can be shown to have repeatedly, in the past, provoked, tormented, teased,
abused or assaulted the dog;
(c) who was committing or attempting to commit a crime.
Subd. 12. Law Enforcement Exemption. The provisions of this section do not apply to
trained dogs used by law enforcement personnel officials for police work.
Subd. 13. Apprehension. Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in subdivisions 1
through 11, any animal control officer or any police officer is authorized and empowered to kill
any animal which because of disease or viciousness constitutes an immediate threat to
human life or safety or the life or safety of another domestic animal and cannot be safely
taken up and impounded by other reasonable means. In such case, the owner shall be liable
for any and/or all penalties provided by law.
Subd. 14. Destruction of Dog in Certain Circumstances. Notwithstanding the provisions
set forth in this chapter, a dog that inflicts substantial or great bodily harm (as those terms are
defined in Minn. Stat. §609.02) on a human being without provocation may be destroyed in a
proper and humane manner by Animal Control. Animal Control shall issue a notice of intent to
May 8, 1998 -update
317
Chapter 106A —Animals
destroy the dog to the dog's owner. The owner shall have three days from receipt of the
notice to request a hearing before the Animal Complaint Review Panel. The owner shall have
the burden of establishing that the exemptions in Subd. 11 apply to this incident, or that the
dog would not otherwise be declared dangerous following a hearing conducted for that
purpose.
Subd. 15. Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs; Requirements (a) An owner
of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog shall keep the dog, while on the owner's
property, in a proper enclosure. If the dog is outside the proper enclosure, the dog must be
muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under the physical restraint of a
responsible person. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the dog from
biting any person or animal but that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its
vision or respiration.
(b) An owner of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog must renew the registration
of the dog annually until the dog is deceased. If the dog is removed from the jurisdiction, it
must be registered as a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog in its new jurisdiction.
(c) An owner of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog must notify the animal
control authority in writing of the death of the dog or its transfer to a new jurisdiction within
30 days of the death or transfer, and must, if requested by the animal control authority,
execute an affidavit under oath setting forth either the circumstances of the dog's death and
disposition or the complete name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom
the dog has been transferred.
(d) An animal control authority may require a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog
to be sterilized at the owner's expense. If the owner does not have the animal sterilized, the
animal control authority may have the animal sterilized at the owner's expense.
(e) A person who owns a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog and who rents
property from another where the dog will reside must disclose to the property owner prior to
entering the lease agreement and at the time of any lease renewal that the person owns a
dangerous or potentially dangerous dog that will reside at the property.
(f) A person who sells a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog must notify the
purchaser that the animal control authority has identified the dog as dangerous or
potentially dangerous. The seller must also notify the animal control authority in writing of
the sale and provide the animal control authority with the new owner's name, address, and
telephone number.
106A.20. Penalties. Unless otherwise specified, violations of this chapter are
declared to be misdemeanor offenses and are punishable by a fine of up $1000 and/or 90
days in jail.
106A.21. Quarantine of Unvaccinated Animal. The owner of an animal that inflicts a
bite on a human shall provide to animal control evidence that the animal is current on its
May 8, 1998 - update
318
e-
3Z
,T
Chapter 106A —Animals
rabies vaccination. Animal Control may seize and hold such animal at the City's animal
pound for a period of not less than 10 days if evidence of a current rabies vaccination is not
presented or otherwise of record. The animal may be reclaimed by the owner upon
payment of impounding and boarding fees. A animal not reclaimed under this subdivision
within seven days may be disposed of and the owner is liable to the animal control authority
for costs incurred in confining and disposing of the animal.
May 8, 1998 - update
319
Meeting
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date. 1110541
GENOA SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Rochester Public Utilities
D u /
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
Kathy Wilson
The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on October 30, 2001 and requests
the Common Council's favorable consideration:
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with NGK-Locke,
Inc. for insulators. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $85,520.00
and NGK-Locke, hic. being lowest responsible bidder.
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Thomas &
Betts/Energy Product Sales for steel transmission structures. The amount of the
agreement to be $105,074.00 and Thomas & Betts/Energy Product Sales being
lowest responsible bidder.
to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with L.E. Myers Company
and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the
agreement for the 161kV Ql/Q2 Transmission Line Construction. The amount of
the contract agreement to be $683,346.81 and L.E. Myers Company being lowest
responsible bidder.
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Alstom USA,
Inc. for circuit breakers. The amount of the agreement to be $109,780.00 and
Alstrom USA, Inc. being lowest responsible bidder.
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Border States
Electric/Cooper Power Systems for transformers. The amount of the purchase order
agreement to be $33,912.00 and Border States Electric/Cooper Power Systems
being lowest evaluated bidder.
to approve a resolution to approve an amendment to the engineering services
agreement with Bums and McDonnell (Contract 99-16-E dated December 20, 1999)
for engineering services. The amount of the amendment to be $498,000.00 and the
total amount of the contract not to exceed $1,698,000.00.
to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with Ulteig Engineers, Inc.
and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the
agreement for additional engineering services. The total amount of the contract
agreement to be $493,000.00.
GENERAL MANAGER:
[[[ ��'
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Agenda Item # 3. a.
SUBJECT:
FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date:
Consideration of Bids
161kV Polymer Post Insulators
Steven J. Cook �'
PREPARED BY:
Senior Electrical Engineer
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
10/30/01
On October 16, 2001, four responsible bids were received to supply 421, 161kV polymer post insulators for
the upgrade of the Q1/Q2 transmission line. The Q1/Q2 transmission line is located between Silver Lake
Substation and Chester Substation.
The bids were opened and all bidders submitted bid bonds and met the requirements of the bid. The bids
are listed below:
Bidder
Bid Amount
NGK-Locke, Inc. $82,520.00
Border States Electric/Ohio Brass $83,802.15
Sediver, Inc. $88,410.00
MacLean Power Systems $111,038.75
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that the Board approve a purchase order agreement with NGK-Locke, Inc. for
$82,520.00 for the purchase of 421 insulators.
Rcv�2w�d 10-2.2-W WV\'4r
GeTieral Manager
/D
Date
z
Agenda Item # 3. b .
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date:
Consideration of Bids
Steel Transmission Structures
Steven J. Cook
Senior Electrical Engineer
10/30/01
On October 9, 2001, two responsible bids were received to supply four steel transmission structures for the
upgrade of the Q1/Q2 transmission line. The Q1/Q2 transmission line is located between Silver Lake
Substation and Chester Substation.
All bidders submitted bid bonds and met the requirements of the bid. The bids are listed.below:
Bidder Bid Amount
Thomas & Betts/Energy Product Sales $105,074.00
Valmont PolesBergstrom-Verbarg Co. $137,837.00
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that the Board approve a purchase order agreement with Thomas & Betts/Energy
Product Sales for $105,074.00 for the purchase of four steel transmission structures.
14-N\:cwe8 10-Z3- O( Wh''�-
4W4 414- /O -d/
Ge#ral Manager Date
r
Agenda Item # 3. c .
FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date:
SUBJECT: Consideration of Bids
161kV Ql/Q2 Line Construction
IREPARED BY: Steven J. Cook c4w
Senior Electrical Engineer
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
10/30/01
On October 18,2001, five responsible bids were received for the rebuild of the Q1 and Q2 transmission
lines between Silver Lake Substation and Chester Substation.
All bidders submitted bid bonds and met the requirements of the bid. The bids are listed below:
Bidder and Home Office
Hooper Construction Co., Madison, WI
L.E. Myers Co., Marshalltown, IA
MJ Electric, Inc., Iron Mountain, MI
PAR Electrical Contractors, Inc., Des Moines, IA
Donavan Construction, Little Canada, MN
The work is expected to be completed by June 2002.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED:
Bid Amount
$ 821,265.30
$ 683,346.81
$ 973,697.00
$1,042,727.51
$ 871,397.07
It is recommended that the Board approve a construction contract agreement with L.E. Myers Company for
$683,346.81 for the Q1/Q2 transmission line construction project.
R�v�ew�4 ID-23-0I WAf,
Ga eral Manager
/o-A3-0/
Date
3
Agenda Item # 3. d.
SUBJECT:
FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date:
CONSIDERATION OF BIDS
OUTDOOR CIRCUIT BREA
PREPARED BY: Greg Woodworth /VV
Engineering Manager
��(
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
10/30/01
Five responsible bids were opened on Friday, October 19, 2001 for furnishing two outdoor power circuit
breakers. These breakers will be used for the Q1/Q2 upgrade at Chester Substation.
Alstom USA, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder. Since RPU has purchased six of these breakers for
previous projects, the purchase of additional spare parts is not necessary.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that the Utility Board request Common Council approval of a purchase order agreement
with Alstom USA, Inc. for $109,780.
gC,C-eWCL� 10-23-01 W11�,
General Manager K%J
D -2 6-0
Date
PUBLIC UTILITIES
3� 1�
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item # 3. e. Meeting Date: 10/ 30/01
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF QUOTES
THREE PHASE PAD -MOUNTED AUXILLIARY TRANSFORMERS
PREPARED BY: Neil Stiller
Senior Electrical Engineer
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
On October 21, 2001, four responsible quotes were received to supply auxilliary transformers for
the Cascade Creek Combustion Turbine 92 project.
The specification requested a base price and specific delivery requirements. These were the
principle basis for evaluation as stated in the specification. The specification called for no loss
evaluation due to the specific project application.
Vendor Manufacturer Lead Time Price Each
Wesco
ABB
6-7 Wks
$26,100.00
Wesco
ABB alternate
6-7 Wks
$22,561.00
Resco
Pauwels
12-14 Wks
$18,644.00
Border States
Cooper
10-12 Wks
$16,956.00
Burmeister
Howard Industries
14-16 Wks
$13,677.00
Due to contract commitments with the balance of the combustion turbine #2 project, delivery schedule
is very important. Therefore it is recommended to disqualify the Burmeister/Howard Industries
quote due to non-compliance to specification.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that the Board reject the Burmeister/Howard Industries bid due to non-compliance to
specification, and approve a purchase order agreement for $33,912.00 with Border States Electric/Cooper
Power Systems as lowest evaluated bidder for three-phase pad -mounted auxiliary transformers.
ReV�ewed 10-2Li-o1 WY,4-
d� 2lvt tto�� r o 26-0/
Gen ral Manager r<d-L,) Date
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item# 4 Meeting Date: 10/30/01
SUBJECT:
Bums and McDonnell — Additional Engineering Services for Cascade Creek Gas
Turbine Unit 2
PREPARED BY:
Wally Schlink, Manager of Power Production
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
In August of 1999 the Utility Board approved the Power Supply Plan, which accepted SMMPA's
Contract Rate of Delivery and established Rochester as a partial requirements member of the agency.
The Power Supply Plan also included the installation of a gas turbine as a primary source to meet the
future capacity and energy growth of the Rochester electric system.
In November 1999, RPU received a proposal from Burns and McDonnell to provide engineering design
and field services for the gas turbine project. In December 1999, RPU staff brought the proposal
forward to the Board and an agreement for Bums & McDonnell to provide engineering services on a
time and material basis and a preliminary estimate of fees of $1,200,000 was approved at that meeting.
We have been operating under this preliminary proposal throughout the development of the project.
As in all preliminary estimates there were several assumption made based on the anticipated scope,
project design, site conditions, specification development, schedule and resident engineering time
required to complete the project. The scope of this project has varied greatly since the preliminary
estimate. The successful supplier of the gas turbine was Pratt & Whitney, which requires multiple
foundations instead of the single foundation of most turbine manufactures. In addition, the size of the
project doubled from a 25-megawatt turbine generator to its current final capacity of 50 megawatts. The
soil boring reports indicated extremely poor soil loading ratings at the site of 500 p.s.i. which required
150+ drilled and poured pier foundations for all major equipment.
Attached is correspondence from Bums and McDonnell detailing the preliminary estimate sections that
were inadequate to meet all the design and residential engineering requirements of the final project
scope and the estimated additional costs to meet those requirements. After review and discussion with
RPU staff, Bums and McDonnell agreed to limit the total of the additional engineering costs to
$498,000, which would be a cap of $1,698,000 for the gas turbine project.
The project has been set up in a multiple contract format with Burns & McDonnell providing
architectural and engineering services and RPU being the project manager. RPU staff has been very
pleased with the performance of Burns and McDonnell and feels that they have provided a quality
service to the utility. Staff has also reviewed the additional cost requirements and attests that they are
necessary and reasonable to bring the gas turbine project to a successful completion. The engineering
Ge ral Manager Date
�qc
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item # Meeting Date:
Costs, as a percentage of the total project budget, is approximately 8.2%, which is reasonable and
within customary engineering guidelines.
RPU project staff will be in attendance to make a short presentation, discuss progress and overall
costs of the gas turbine project and to answer any questions.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution requesting the Cornmon Council to approve
additional engineering fees, not to exceed $498,000 under the terms of the existing engineering
services agreement with Bums and McDonnell to provide professional engineering services as
required for completion of the installation of the Cascade Creek gas turbine.
General Manager
Date
�z/
i
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item # 5 Meeting Date:
SUBJECT: Contract for Engineering Services Amendment
Chester Substation Upgrade
PREPARED BY: Greg Woodworth
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
10/30/01
At the June 27, 2001 meeting the Board approved an agreement with Ulteig Engineers, Inc. to upgrade the
161kV Q1 Transmission Line, which connects Silver Lake and Chester Substations. A copy of the May 27,
2001 FBA is attached.
Chester Substation is our interconnection point with Dairyland Power Cooperative. It consists of a
Dairyland substation and an RPU substation that are separate fenced areas but are electrically connected. In
early design meetings with Dairyland between July 9`a and August 10`h, we found that the upgrade could not
be completed by May 1 as required in our contract with NSP if Dairyland had to accommodate the Q1
upgrade with design and construction in their part of the substation.
In order to complete the Q1 upgrade in the time frame required, we will perform the required construction
in our portion of the substation.
Although this is a scope increase in the Ulteig design engineering contract it has no effect on the project
budget! The work required is essentially the same; the only difference is who will be performing the work.
In our original plan, Dairyland would be performing the engineering and construction to accommodate the
upgrade and we would be paying Dairyland for completing the design and construction and procuring the
required equipment to be installed and owned by them. Under the revised plan, Ulteig Engineers is
performing the design, RPU is procuring the equipment directly, and a combination of RPU and contractor
forces will be performing the construction and testing and RPU will own and control the modification.
A copy of the modified contract is also attached. The changes to the contract are highlighted and Exhibit D
is added to the contract. Exhibit D is a slightly modified form of the attached letter.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that the Board request the Common Council to approve a contract amendment with
Ulteig Engineers, Inc on Contract 01-13-E dated July 2, 2001 to change the amount of the total contract
from $400,000 to $493,000 to provide additional- professional engineering services per the attached letter
dated September 27, 2001.
�eWed M-zz-CA Wh9—
Date
UTILITIES
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /5/01
- "NDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
1) - U
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Sole Source Procurement of Equipment: Sanitary Sewer Flow
Monitoring Equipment.
7EPARED BY:
D. Nelson'Pn'
In March 1999, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement for an analysis of its sanitary sewer system.
The initial focus of this study was to determine the sources of infiltration and inflow of water into the sanitary
sewer collection system and identify cost effective solutions to reduce I & 1.
As a part of this study, it has become necessary to conduct long-term monitoring of sanitary sewer flow data and
rainfall data for periodic updating of system hydraulic modeling. This will enable city staff to determine when pipe
capacities are being exceeded or about to be exceeded and to determine remedies to correct these situations.
Remedies could include construction of parallel sewer mains, increased maintenance efforts, lining of pipe, or other
courses of action.
The Public Works Department identified the need to construct and install 10 permanent sites for sanitary sewer
flow monitoring, 4 permanent rainfall -monitoring sites, and a main data storage and analysis site at the Water
Reclamation Plant. At the March 5, 2001 Council meeting, the City Council approved the Sole Source
procurement of the initial 6 flow meters with Marsh-McBirney, Inc. Marsh-McBirney is the only manufacturer of
radar -based flow monitors.
We are requesting Sole Source procurement with Marsh-McBirney, Inc. for the remaining 4 flow meter sets at
$58,072.
The project has been included and approved in the 2001 Capital Improvement Program, Sewer and Water, Project
#I, J-2179 and is funded by retained earnings from the Sewer Utility-4330.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City to sole source purchase sanitary sewer flow monitoring equipment from
Marsh-McBirney, Inc.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/5/01
.NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 1)
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services for Rose Harbor Regional Stormwater Pond PR PARED BY:
(J-9868) k X D. Nelson V1-`
Construction of regional stormwater pond be-p2.18 has been proposed to serve a portion of the Rose
Harbor area.
Waterway capacity problems currently exist from the Marion Rd area to the new development area
within Rose Harbor. Construction of the pond is needed to alleviate these existing capacity problems as
well as to mitigate the increased runoff from additional development.
McGhie & Betts, Inc., proposes to provide preliminary engineering services for the analysis and design
of the pond, as well as the waterways both upstream and downstream of the pond, on an hourly basis
not to exceed $15,000.00. Staff recommends a professional services agreement be entered with
McGhie & Betts, Inc. for preliminary engineering services.
Funding for the preliminary engineering services will be from J2137, collected Stormwater Management
Area Charges.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign a Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc., for
preliminary engineering design services associated with Rose Harbor Regional Stormwater Pond bc-
p2.18, for an amount not to exceed $15,000.00 (J-9868).
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 7/
DATE: 11-5-01
`^'ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
;;]
ITEM DESCRIPTION: n Removal of Traffic Semi-diverter 26 Street & Northern Viola Lane NE
The City has received a request to remove this semi-diverter. The request has come thru the local Council
member, Mac Evans. The Rochester Police Department has been actively enforcing the 261h Street NE
Semi-diverter, but many violations occur. The Police Department receives calls for enforcement, but
cannot be there at all hours. The calls come from the citizens of the neighborhood. They state they would
like to see the semi-diverter removed.
The semi-diverter was originally installed as a result of a petition from the neighborhood. There was
concern that traffic from outside the neighborhood would use the street as a short cut to the CSAH 22 and
to the commercial development along CSAH 22. The extension of Viola Heights Drive is being
constructed this year. The concrete curb is going in this week. Soon there will be building permits
authorized for the adjacent lots. This extension will provide a north exit from the neighborhood and may
reduce the demand for sneaking out thru the 261h Street semi-diverter.
Department Recommendation: The Department of Public Works recommends that the City Council
order the traffic semi-diverter removed and the pavement replaced yet this year.
.Semi-'diverter `, Cf)
I 261H ST NE m
- -- i rn
z
- rn
------_-__. p 1_..
i
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution deleting paragraph (5) of Section M "Neighborhood Traffic & Parking
Control' of the Comprehensive Traffic and Parking Resolution Book, which reads:
(5) 26th Street NE east of Viola Heights Drive NE, an eastbound Semi-semi-diverter.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE:
7
2/21/01
A^�NOA SECTION:
ORIGINATING ❑EPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Parking Restriction on Technology Drive NW
PREPARED BY:
,,,,--D. Rossman
This is a recommendation to restrict parking on the south side of Technology Drive NW from Valleyhigh
Drive to CSAH 22. This is a new roadway with a width of 36 feet, which normally would allow I lane in
each direction and parking on one side in commercial or industrial areas. However, there is substantial
truck traffic generated by the manufacturing and warehouse industries. In addition, there has been heavy
parking occurring on both sides of the road.
This issue has been discussed with representatives from Pemstar and Mayo Warehouse staff. Sufficient
off-street employee parking is available. Staff recommends the a proval of the parking restriction.
1
Lti
m 1 CfiiVfJtOf�DRIV!-N1N— --- \,t ` •.
y
0—
2
CD
it 7Z {v�
r
_ ---+A
1�
I
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph (320) to Chapter B "No Parking" of the Comprehensive
Traffic and Parking Resolution Book to read:
(320) Technology Drive NW on the south side from Valleyhigh Drive NW to CSAH 22 (West Circle
Drive, at all time.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11-5-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
—/
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Diagonal Parking near Central Park
PREPARED BY: �, J
Rossman
A request was received from Mr. Ken Zubay owner of the Broadstreet Restaurant to add Diagonal
Parking in various locations. The following two locations have been studied. Both have parallel
parking at this time, and the parking is very heavily used. Additional parking in this area is needed.
The accident rate of the existing diagonal parking roads has been reviewed, and the rate is very
similar to parallel parking sections. Staff has reviewed the geometric requirements for diagonal
parking, and these two streets meet all the established criteria. Staff recommends in favor of the
change.
1. First Avenue NW from 2ed Street to 3Id Street, west side of the road. Currently there is
diagonal parking on the east side of this street and parallel on the west with one northbound traffic
lane and two southbound traffic lanes. Eliminating one of the southbound traffic lanes and
converting the parking to diagonal would gain approximately 10 additional spaces. The Mayo
Clinic Parking Staff has reviewed the request and concurs.
2. Second Avenue NW / 200 block, cast side of the road. Currently there is parallel parking on
both sides of the street and one lane of traffic in each direction. The pavement width is sufficient
to convert one of the parking lanes to parallel and keeping the two traffic lanes. Approximately 10
parking spaces would be gained. The east side is recommended for diagonal parking.
i
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution amending the Comprehensive Traffic & Parking Resolution Book as
follows:
Amending paragraphs (10) and (11) of section A Angle Parking to read:
10) First Avenue NW, on the both sides from Second St. to Third Street NW.
11) Second Avenue NW, on the east side from Second to Third Street.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
Zr
M
rru�
ti14
o,
w
U
Cl)
MN 3AV ONZ
raven
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
w�-cNDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Truck Loading Zone 3`d Avenue SW/200 block
Public Works
DATE: 11-5-01
ITEM NO.
_r-) --/%
PREPARED BY:
D. Rossman
The City has received a request for a Truck Loading Zone to be used for trucks coming to the Mayo and
the Gonda Loading docks. The request came from Mr. Michael Ziemann, Supervisor of Parking and
Transportation for the Mayo Clinic (266-4854).
The loading zone is needed for trucks staging near the docks. The request is for one space on the east side
of 3`d Avenue SW, just south of 2"d Street. This area is presently used for metered parking.
Truck Loading Zones are established in accordance with Section 134.14 of the Rochester Code of
Ordinances, which reads: 134.14 Truck Loading Zones. No person shall park a vehicle, other than a
commercial vehicle, in any space established by the Council as a truck -loading zone, and so signed and
marked, during the hours when the regulations, applicable to such truck loading zones are effective.
Commercial vehicles may park in designated truck loading zones for the purpose of loading and
unloading commodities and for no other purpose, and such stops shall not be for a longer period of time
than necessary to accomplish such purpose. In no case shall the stop for loading or unloading
commodities exceed THIRTY MINUTES.
Staff has reviewed the request and recommends its approval.
...... — - I '
L:j F
3Rn ST SW
-- -) I -___.-
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph (19) to Section D "Truck Loading Zones" of the
Comprehensive Traffic and Parking Resolution Book, to read:
(19) Third Avenue SW, on the east side of the street, from 2"d Street SW south a distance of 40 feet
more or less, a staging area for the Mayo and Gonda Building, from 6:00am to 4:00pm, Monday -Friday.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
"'NDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT- I ITEM NO.
REPORTS and RECOMMENDATIONS I Public Works I
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Land Acquisition - Storm water facilities to serve Section 7 (J P PARA
2468) Lo M.
The City Council previously authorized the creation of a storm water management district for Section 7 in
Cascade Township. The City has also previously retained Bonestroo and Associates to perform a study
for storm water management facilities to serve the area of Section 7 in northwest Rochester lying West
of 50th Avenue NW and north of 55th Street NW. The study provided various options to manage the
storm water runoff from future development. All of the options included the acquisition of land area for
the construction of the stormwater facilities.
Staff would request authorization to retain consultants for the real estate acquisition process for the
storm water facilities. Staff also requests the authorization to negotiate and settle with the land owners
for the needed land rights for a value not to exceed 15% of the appraised value. If negotiations do not
progress Staff would also request authorization, at the direction of the City Administrator, to begin the 90
Day Quick Take eminent domain process. This process may be needed to maintain the current
schedule to construct the project in 2002. Staff will continue to negotiate towards a settlement during
the condemnation process.
Concurrent with the acquisition process the design of the storm water basins will need to occur to
provide construction in 2002. Staff would also request authorization to retain Bonestroo and Associates
for the design for the storm water facilities.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adoption of a resolution authorizing the staff to retain consultants, negotiate/acquire the needed
real estate at a value not to exceed 15% above the appraised value, and authorize the use of the
90 day "Quick Take" for land acquisition associated with the Section 7 Stormwater facilities
project.
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Service Agreement with Bonestroo
for the design of the storm water facilities necessary to provide stormwater management for
Section 7, Cascade Township
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Land Acquisition -
(J9748)
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO_
Public Works D -
PRPARED BY:
,;J ' M. Nigbur'`I%l
City staff pursued acquisition of the needed property for the project using the state acquisition
requirements. Based on the continued negotiations between the City and the Owner a preliminary
settlement has been reached. The terms of the settlement include payment to the Owners. By settling
the acquisition with the Owners the City and Owners have avoided the cost of condemning these
properties.
The following property Owners have agreed to provide the right of way in exchange for payment::
• Mr. Freetly - settlement amount $3,000
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Payment for the needed land rights for the above referenced property owner
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: Io:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING i / i
A^�NOA SECTION:
r�•rt>�i,ris�a�.m
ORIGINATING ❑EPT:
Public Works
DATE: 11 /5/01
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Lana Acquisition - 5ettiement Tor oU' Avenue Ivvv (uar1ts) PREPARED BY: ,
I,�f M. NigburM.�,
City staff pursued acquisition of the needed property using the state acquisition requirements. Based on
the continued negotiations between the City and the Owner a preliminary settlement has been reached.
The terms of the settlement include payment to the Owners. By settling the acquisition with the Owners
the City and Owners have avoided the cost of condemning these properties.
The following property Owners have agreed to provide the right of way in exchange for payment::
• Mr. and Mrs. Kerwin settlement amount $23,000 (appraised value was $18,500)
• Mr. and Mrs. Granrud settlement amount $53,300 (appraised value was $48,800)
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the payment for the needed land rights for the above referenced property owners
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/5/01
A^cNDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING ❑EPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
0
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Settlement Agreement for Right of Way Acquisition
7PARED BY:
for the Badger Run Sewer Project — J9745
M. Nigbur'r+bjl
The City's WQPP project to extend sanitary sewer to serve portions of Marion Township required the
procurement of easements. City staff pursued acquisition of the needed property using the state
acquisition requirements. Based on the continued negotiations between the City and the Owner a
preliminary settlement has been reached. The terms of the settlement include payment of $2,000 per
average size acquisition and $2,500 for larger acquisitions. By settling on the acquisition cost with the
Owners the City has avoided the cost of condemning these properties.
The following property Owners have agreed to provide the easement in exchange for payment:
• Mr. & Mrs. Shanahan $2000
• Mrs. Ramanauskas $2000
l I
�') {
..I t
Sewer Route I (_
i'r h
•.1
gtyvSN CT
Shanahan
Rananuaskas
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the payment for the needed easements for the above referenced property owners.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
13
--NDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Bendel Business Center
DATE: 11/5/01
ITEM NO.
--1Z
BARED BY,
M. Nigbur �v
The developers of Bendel Business Center, to be located West of Bendel Road NW, and City Staff have
had discussions relating to impacts of the development of the property on the surrounding infrastructure.
Based on our discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document
has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following:
• Pedestrian facilities within and abutting the development.
• Dedication of right of way/easements.
• Traffic Improvements including access control, and signage.
• Owner's payment of the assessments, development/connection related charges
including SAC, WAC, connection charges, future pedestrian facility charges,
TID/Substandard Street charges, and Storm Water Management.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The Owner has executed the
agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the Bendel Business
Center with C & S Enterprises, inc.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11-5-01
Ar'rNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Speed Zone Study 4151 Street NW: TH 52 to CSAH 22 EPARED BY:
0R. Freese
The City Public Works has received a request from the Police Chief to have the speed zone reviewed on
41 street NW from TH52 to CSAH 22. Additionally Mn/Dot notified the City that the current speed limit
of 30 M.P.H. was not the appropriate speed limit for this road. The City Council set the speed limit at 30
M.P.H. when the new road was opened several years ago.
There has been substantial change in the roadway and the adjacent land use. A traffic signal has been
added at one intersection, and an all -way stop at a second intersection. This would justify a review of the
speed limit. The road is designated as a collector on the ROCOG Thoroughfare plan. It has two traffic
lanes in each direction a center left -turn lane in the section from TH52 to 315t Avenue. Staff recommends
that an official request be sent to Mn/Dot to have this speed zone reviewed.
The Police Chief also requests that the existing speed limit of 30 M.P.H. be removed because it is not
enforceable according to Mn/Dot. Staff recommends that a new interim speed limit be established of 40
M.P.H. until such time as the "official' speed study is completed.
uA-y
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1) Adopt the prepared resolution requesting Mn/Dot to conduct a review of the existing speed zone
on 41Street NW from TH52 to CSAH 22
2) Establish an interim speed limit of 40 M.P.H. on 41't Street NW from TH52 to CSAH 22.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING J s 4'
DATE: 1115/01
A^�NDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT,
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
�—
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Civic Drive
PREPARED BY:
Plaza — Jack Prow Property (J9829)
M. Baker
Background:
Execution of a City -Owner Contract was authorized for this project at the August 20, 2001 Council
meeting. The City has not executed the Contract authorized by Council on 8/20/01, because the
Contractor has not submitted Bond & Insurance documentation for the project. At this time the Owner is
requesting that the Contractor be changed from Rochester Construction Co., to Road Constructors, Inc
Current Request:
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
The Prow Company (Owner) & Road Constructors Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner
Contract J9829 consisting of "Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Civic Drive Plaza (Jack Prow Property)".
The City is in receipt of Bonds and Insurance documentation for this project from the new contractor,
Road Constructors, Inc. If Council approves this request, the previously authorized Contract can be
discarded, as it is not executeed the City
_I I Q�
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9829,
"Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Civic Drive Plaza (Jack Prow Property)"
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /5101
�ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
i
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advertisement for Bids, Demolition of Buildings at Eastwood
PREPARED BY:
Village, J2068
F J.',WellnerG
District Court has authorized in Court File No. 55-C6-01-002937 the demolition of four 8-Plex buildings
in the Eastwood Village. These four buildings are at the following addresses:
1950 8 % Street SE
2024 8'/2 Street SE
2032 8'/ Street SE
2048 8 Y2 Street SE
Staff recommends the city demolish the four buildings and receive bids for the demolition of the four
buildings and requests the council to order the advertising for these bids.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
If the council wishes to proceed with the demolition of the four 8-Plex buildings in Eastwood Village at
1950, 2024, 2032 & 2048 8 % Street SE, a resolution to advertise for bids for building demolition should
be adopted.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5-7 r
DATE: 11 /5/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
L) -,:) ( 1-
ITEM DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
PREPARED BY:
". Baker y/ y
The Department of Public Works has received a request on one (1) property, to voluntarily
participate in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). This department
has reviewed the information for this property and has determined that there is support for
participation. The Owner has requested voluntary participation in the City's Plan, with the
applicable participation fees as follows:
Elmcroft Fourth Subdivision
(Replat of Lots 20 & 21, Elmcroft 3`d) $3,189.83
The Owner has already provided payment for its respective charges. These funds will be
deposited upon acceptance by the Council for the property to participate in the City's Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation by the above noted property, in the City's
Regional Storm Water Management Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING -5 , '
DATE: 1115/01
^71VDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 6 - :1 7
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Basic Construction to Serve the 37 St PREPARED BY: i
Theatres / ShopKo North Site (J9809) 11 F M. Baker + %
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
GAC Theatres, LLC (Owner) & Rochester Sand & Gravel, a division of Mathy Construction, Inc.
(Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9809 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve the
371h St Theatres (ShopKo North Site)".
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9809
"Basic Construction to Serve the 37t' St Theatres (ShopKo North Site)".
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/5/01
er_FNDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
7
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Basic Construction in Badger Ridge Second
PREPARED BY.
Subdivision (J9779)
M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Badger Development II, LLC (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City /
Owner Contract J9779 consisting of "Basic Construction in Badger Ridge Second Subdivision".
a IihR
Wyr
M t
M
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9779
"Basic Construction in Badger Ridge Second Subdivision ".
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /5101
I "^ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Contribution Agreement — Brad & Lori Thatcher Property (Lots 1, PREPARED BY: P'V�
2, & 3, Block 1, Forest Hills 5th Subdivision)
F M. Nigbur "`�Z►
The Owners have indicated their intent to develop the property as a residential development, and have
requested to enter into a Contribution Agreement with the City, to address their financial obligations for
the paving of Edgewood Court SW, which is desirable to facilitate their proposed development.
City Staff have prepared, and the Owner's have executed, a Contribution Agreement as discussed
above, Staff recommends the Council approve the Contribution Agreement.
I�
"DEROSR M SW
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
XSTSW
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Contribution Agreement for the Brad & Lori Thatcher
Property (aka Lots 1, 2, & 3, Block 1, Forest Hills 5th Subdivision).
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 11-05-01
DATE:
Ar;FNnA SFCTION,
ORIMNATINr; nFPT-
PUBLIC WORKS
ITFM N2
`I� _ ] t_ ,
CONSENT AGENDA
BUS PROCUREMENT SERVICES CONTRACT
PRFPARFn RY-
A KNAUER
This is a request for approval to contract with First Transit of Cincinnati, Ohio to assist in a multi -year
procurement of up to 28 buses over a 5 year period. (A summary of the proposed services is
attached.) First Transit's proposal calls for assistance in development of the specifications and
procurement documents and bid evaluation at a cost of $16,103. Pre -award and "Buy American'
compliance audits would also be provided at a cost of $4,791 for a total cost of $20,894. The total cost
of the procurement if all option buses are purchased is over 7 million dollars.
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
One task of the proposed contract calls for an evaluation of procurement options such as low bid
versus an evaluated bid process. Staff at this time is favoring an evaluated bid process where points
are given for qualifications, price, delivery schedule, use of components and seating capacity. (The
criteria can vary but must be identified upfront.) This process provides for a two step submittal by the
manufacturer with a final and best offer. St Cloud and Lacrosse recently used the evaluated bid
process. Both indicated that they felt the process resulted in a better product at a better price and
favorable delivery.
FUNDING
City currently has funding including approved State and federal grants and local share for the
•The
purchase of eight buses. The bid will call for the delivery of these eight buses with options for 20
additional. The option buses will be exercised as funding is secured. Price adjustments for future
option buses will be based on the Producer Price Index for bus builders. Prior to any order for option
buses changes in bus technology and features will be reviewed and handled on a change order basis.
SCHEDULE
The tentative schedule calls for bids the first part of February, 2002. At a minimum delivery of the first
eight buses will be called for within 52 weeks or less. Option buses pending funding would be awarded
4 to 5 per year.
CONSULTANT PROPOSALS
Two proposals for this project were received. Based on their submittals First Transit has the most
experience in procurement administration and the evaluated bid process. The firms were equal in
inspection services. (This contract does not include inspection services at this time. That would be
decided after award.)
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving a contract with First Transit for bus procurement services as
per their proposal.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/05/2001
.ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO:
.-..nsent Agenda
Water Reclamation Plant
-- j
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advertise of Bids for the Digester Gas Piping (J-4382)
PREPARED By: ��,1
and Hot Water Loop Piping (J-4388)
Lyle J. Zimmerman Y
The Water Reclamation Plant will be making modifications to the piping handling digester gas produced at the
Water Reclamation Plant. These modifications will allow for more efficient use of the gas. Modifications will
also be made to the hot water loop piping to Digesters No. 5 and No. 6 which will allow waste heat produced by
the engine generators to be used in the digesters. In the future the engine generators will be turbo -charged and
some preliminary work on the exhaust system will be included with these projects.
Black & Veatch Corporation, consulting engineers, have completed a design for these improvement and have
prepared bidding documents for this work.
Council Action Requested:
Approval to advertise for bids the 2001 Digester Gas and Heating Water Improvements for the Water
Reclamation Plant.
"OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1115101
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
0 CONSENT
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D V 3Z
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH MARION
TOWNSHIP FOR CHESTER HEIGHTS
PREPARED BY:
G. NEUMANN
The City staff previously provided a draft orderly annexation agreement to the Marion Township Board for the
Chester Heights area. The intent of the agreement is to make provision for the annexation of the Chester
Heights area without objection of Marion Township at such time as the boundary of the City of Rochester
touches the Chester Heights area. Due to service inefficiencies the staff believes that the City would not be in a
position where it would want to annex this area until other city services are in the immediate area. This
proposed agreement closely follows previous agreements with Marion Township. Marion Township approved
the agreement on October 23.
The purpose of agreeing to the orderly annexation agreement at this time is that this will facilitate the efforts of
the Chester Heights property owners to secure funding to correct a significant pollution problem that affects
their drinking water supply and their homes. Several local government units have been cooperating to assist the
property -owners in addressing this problem. The City has discussed reasonable terms under which the sewage
flow from Chester Heights would be handled in the City's sanitary sewer lines and treatment plant at a
significant savings to the property -owners. Marion Township has cooperated with the property -owners and with
the City in their approval of the orderly annexation agreement. Olmsted County is cooperating in investigating
funding for the project and other matters.
Council Action Requested.
Approval of the Orderly Annexation Agreement with Marion Township for the Chester Heights Area.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to:
l
Ll
IGSTSE n n
LAW OFFICES
DuNLAP & SEEGER, P.A.
RONALD L. SEEGER
MARY H. DUNLAP
MILTON A. ROSENBLAD
206 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE 505
WILLIAM P. VOLEMAR
PAUL A. FINSETH
MARQUETTE BANK BUILDING
MARE E. FOSSE
DANIEL E. BERND`r
PO BOX 549
KEN D. SCHUELER
JOHN B. ARNOLD
ROCHESTER, MINNESOT.A 55903-0549
GREGORY J. GRIFFITHS
PETER C. SANDBERG
MICHAEL S. DIM
TINA L. MOHR
TELEPHONE. (507) 288.9111
SHARON C. ZEHE
KENNETH R. MOEN
KARI STONELAKE-HOPKINS
W ILLIAM J. RYAN
FAX' (507) 288.9342
AARON T. ALBOLD
PAUL W. BUCHER
FAX (507) 288-0812
CHRISTINA K STEVENS
DOUGLAS A. BOESE
ROBERT R. DUNLAP
THOMAS W. JACOBSON
(1915-1992)
of Counsel
AM. `SANDY" EEITH
October 26, 2001
GARY NEUMANN
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
CITY OF ROCHESTER
201 — 4TH STREET SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Dear Gary:
Enclosed, please find the August 10, 1999, Resolution of the Marion Town Board of Supervisors
establishing the Chester Subordinate Service District which has attached as Exhibit "A" a copy
of the legal description with a map attached thereto for the Chester Subordinate Service District
legal description in Marion Township, Minnesota. The Town Board at its continued meeting on
Tuesday of this week approved the Orderly Annexation with the City with this legal description.
If you have any questions in this matter, of course feel free to contact me. Thank you for your
attention and assistance.
Very truly yo
iam P. Vo kmar --`
WPV/jr
Enclosure
Cc: Roger Bjerke
Gerald Campbell
Jim Baier
Janet Hoffmann
Robert W. McIntosh
BEFORE THE
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD OR ITS SUCCESSOR
IN THE MATTER OF THE DESCRIPTION OF
AN UNICORPORATED AREA IN MARION
TOWNSHIP AS IN NEED OF ORDERLY
ANNEXATION AND CONFERRING JURISDICTION
OVER SAID AREA IN THE MINNESOTA
MUNICIPAL BOARD OR ITS SUCCESSOR
PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUES §414.0325, Subd. 1
JOINT RESOLUTION FOR
ORDERLY ANNEXATION
(CHESTER HEIGHTS SANITARY
SEWER DISTRICT AREA -
MARION TOWNSHIP)
WHEREAS, the City of Rochester (hereinafter "City") and Town of Marion (hereinafter "Town") agree
that given the potential health threat from individual sewage treatment systems within the area designated in
Exhibit A, there is a need for municipal sanitary sewer service; and
WHEREAS, the City and Town agree that orderly annexation and the provision of municipal sanitary
sewer service to areas needing such service would benefit the public health, safety and welfare of the entire
community; and
WHEREAS, the City and Town agree that there is a public need for the provision of City sewer in
accordance with existing and future needs to promote the public health and safety by protecting the region's
ground water supply and surface waters; and
WHEREAS, the property described in the attached Exhibit A is presently urban or suburban in nature or
about to become so, and the City is capable of providing public sanitary sewer facilities within a reasonable
time; and
WHEREAS, the provision of public sanitary sewer by the City can be provided if the process and timing
of annexation is clearly identified and jointly agreed upon; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a process of orderly annexation of said lands will be of benefit to the
residents and owners of said lands, and permit the City to make provision for a connection to the municipal
sewer facilities in a planned and efficient manner; and
WHEREAS, for the area designated in Exhibit A, the City and the Town desire to accomplish the
orderly annexation of said area and the provision of municipal services in a mutually acceptable and beneficial
manner without the need for a hearing before the Minnesota Municipal Board and, with the purpose of avoiding
a dispute over the annexation of the property described in said Exhibit A, enter into this joint resolution for
orderly annexation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §414.0325, Subd. 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Rochester and the Town of Marion as follows:
0 1. The City and Town hereby designate that property situated in the Town of Marion, County of
Olmsted, State of Minnesota, which is legally described on the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein
by reference, as in need of orderly annexation pursuant to Minnesota Statues §414.0325. For ease of reference,
the area legally described in Exhibit A is shown on the attached map, Exhibit B.
2. The Town of Marion hereby withdraws any objections filed and agrees to not file any objections
with the Minnesota Office of Strategic and Long -Range Planning ("State Planning"), concerning the City's
desire or request to annex any of the property described on the attached Exhibit A, provided that the boundary
of the corporate limits of the City has become contiguous at any point with the boundary of the Chester Heights
Subordinate Sewer District described in Exhibit A. The Town of Marion further agrees that if it has filed any
objections with the Minnesota Municipal Board or State Planning, to the annexation to the City of any of the
property described in attached Exhibit A, the filing of this Joint Resolution with State Planning shall constitute
sufficient notice of the withdrawal of the objections.
3. The lands designated in Exhibit A attached hereto shall be subject to future annexation to the
City pursuant to the terms and conditions of this joint resolution and shall constitute the `orderly annexation
area" otherwise described in this joint resolution. The City and Town agree that the area legally described in
Exhibit A is designated as in need of orderly annexation and contains approximately acres.
4. Annexation under this joint resolution shall be initiated by the adoption of a resolution by the
City upon the occurrence of the triggering event described in paragraph 2 above. No review by or
recommendation from the City of Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the adoption of a
specific annexation resolution is necessary, except as is hereinafter provided. The City may initiate annexation
of any area designated in Exhibit A by submitting a resolution so providing, along with a copy of this Joint
Resolution, to State Planning, the Town of Marion, and the Olmsted County Auditor/Treasurer. The resolution
for annexation shall contain the boundary description of the area to be annexed and, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Section 414.01, subd. 14 and Section 414.0325, subd. la, shall contain the City's estimates of the
population and number of households contained in the area to be annexed and the estimate of electrical service
cost differences at the time of annexation.
The City and Town agree that no alteration of the stated boundaries is appropriate, that no consideration by
State Planning is necessary, and that all terms and conditions for annexation of the area legally described in
Exhibit A, or any portion thereof, are provided for in this Joint Resolution. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 414.0325, upon receipt of the City's resolution for annexation of the area described in Exhibit A, or any
portion thereof, State Planning may review and comment, but shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of said
resolution, order the annexation of the area described in the resolution in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Joint Resolution.
5. Lands ordered annexed pursuant to this joint resolution shall not be subject to differential
taxation as referenced in Minnesota Statutes §414.035. Property taxes payable on annexed land shall continue
to be paid to the Town for the entire year in which the annexation becomes effective. If an annexation becomes
effective on or before August 1 of a levy year, based on the date specified in the order from State Planning, the
City may levy on the annexed area beginning with that same levy year. If the annexation becomes effective
after August 1 of a levy year, the Town may continue to levy on the annexed area for that levy year. Thereafter
property taxes on the annexed land shall be paid to the City.
2
6. The City shall, in appropriate circumstances, provide notification that the cost of electric utility
service to the customers on the property subject to this joint resolution may change when the land is annexed to
0 City if and when the provider of electrical service is transferred from People's Cooperative Power
sociation to Rochester Public Utilities. As of the date of this joint resolution, the estimate of the difference in
overall electrical service costs between the two providers is minimal. A resolution of the City to annex certain
property subject to this joint resolution, as referenced in paragraph 4, shall contain a cost estimate of any change
in electric utility services, including rate changes and assessments resulting from the annexation.
7. Nothing in this joint resolution shall relieve the Town of its responsibilities for the regular and
normal maintenance of the existing infrastructure of roads, drainage facilities, and street signs until the property
described in the attached Exhibit A has been annexed into the City.
8. Disputes and Remedies. The City and Township agree as follows:
a. Negotiation. When a disagreement over interpretation of any provision of this Joint Resolution
shall arise, the respective City and Township will direct staff members as they deem appropriate
to meet at least one time at a mutually convenient time and place to attempt to resolve the dispute
through negotiation.
b. Mediation. When the parties to this Joint Resolution are unable to resolve disputes, claims or
counterclaims, or are unable to negotiate an interpretation of any provision of this Joint
Resolution, the parties may mutually agree in writing to seek relief by submitting their respective
grievances to non -binding mediation.
C. Adjudication. When the parties to this Joint Resolution are unable to resolve disputes, claims or
counterclaims, are unable to negotiate an interpretation of any provision of this Joint Resolution
or are unable to agree to submit their respective grievances to non -binding mediation, either
party may seek relief through initiation of an action in a court of competent jurisdiction. In
addition to the remedies provided for in this Joint Resolution and any other available remedies at
law or equity, in the case of a violation, default or breach of any provision of this Joint
Resolution, the non -violating, non -defaulting, or non -breaching party may bring an action for
specific performance to compel the performance of this Joint Resolution in accordance with its
terms.
9. Modification/Amendment. This Joint Resolution shall not be modified, amended, or altered
except upon the written joint resolution of the City and the Township duly executed and adopted by the City
Council and Township Board of Supervisors and filed with State Planning.
10. Goveming Law; Severabilitv. This Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation is made pursuant to,
and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event any provision of this
Joint Resolution is determined and adjudged to be unconstitutional, invalid, illegal or unenforceable by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Joint Resolution shall remain in full force and effect,
and the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith and agree to such amendments or modifications of or to this
Joint Resolution or other appropriate actions as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such
determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the parties hereto.
11. Entire Agreement. The terms, covenant, conditions, and provisions of this Joint Resolution,
including the present and all future attachments, shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties,
superseding all prior agreement and negotiations, regarding the annexation area. This Joint Resolution shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective successors and assigns of the City and Town.
3
i
12. Effective Date: Termination. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption by
the parties and its filing by the City and Town with State Planning. The obligations of the parties to one another
ording to the terms of this resolution shall terminate at such time that the entire area designated in Exhibit A
been annexed to the City, or at such time that the City and Town mutually agree in writing that this joint
resolution shall be terminated.
13. Notices. Any notices required to be sent under the terms of this agreement shall be considered
sufficient notice if mailed by first class U.S. mail to the City of Rochester, City Administrator's Office, 201 4"i
Street SE, Rochester, MN 55904, and to the Town of Marion, Marion Town Clerk, 2850 Oakview Court SE,
Rochester, MN 55904.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER,
MINNESOTA THIS DAY OF
ATTEST:
2001.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12001.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE TOWN OF , MINNESOTA, THIS
DAY" OF
ATTEST:
TOWN CLERK
Zone2000brder.annex.cheslerSSD, doc
200.
CHAIRMAN OF TOWN BOARD
EXHIBIT A
CHESTER SUBORDINATE SERVICE DISTRICT
MARION TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA
All of the S % of the SE % of Section 2, Township 106 North, Range 13 West, Olmsted Couni<.
Minnesota, including all of Chester Heights; and
All of the N % of the NE % of Section 11, Township 106 North, Range 13 West, lying North of
the centerline of Through Highway No. 14, Olmsted County, Minnesota; and
Beginning at the Northeast corner of the NW %< of Section 1 1, Township 106 North, Range 13.
thence West 9 rods 4 feet, thence South 18 rods 4 feet, thence East 9 rods 4 feet to the East line
of said NNV V,, thence 18 rods North along the East line of said NW % to the point of beginning;
and also that part of the West 4 acres of the NE '/e of Section I , Township 106, Range 13, lying
North of the railroad right-of-way in Olmsted County, Minnesota; and
Commencing at the Northeast comer of the NW %,, thence South along the East line of the
NW '/< to the intersection with the South line of the Chicago and Northwestem Railroad right-of-
way for a point of beginning; thence continuing South along the East line of said NW '/. to the
centerline of Through Highway No. 14; thence Northwesterly along the centerline of said
Highway 565 feet; thence continuing Northwesterly along the centerline of said Highway 475
feet; thence Northeasterly 364.32 feet to the Southwesterly right-of-way line of the Chicago and
Northwestern Railwav; thence Southeasterly along said railroad right-of-way 950 feet to the
/4
point of beginning, all located in the NE' of the NW '/4 of Section 11, Township 106, Range 13
West, Olmsted County, Minnesota.
That part of the NW % of Section 12, Township 106 North, Range 13 West, h ing South of the
Chicago and Northwestern Railroad right-of-way and North of the centerline of Through
Highway No. 14; less commencing at the intersection of the West line of the section and the
centerline of Through Highway No. 14, then Southeasterly along said centerline 1,190 feet for a
place of beginning, thence North 414.25 feet to the South right-of-wav line of the Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad, thence Southeast along said South right-of-way line to the East line of
said NW %, thence South along said East line 150.12 feet to the centerline of said Through
Highway No. 14. thence Northwesterly along said centerline of Through Highway No. 14 to the
place of beginning, all located in Section 12, Township 106 North, Range 13 West, Olmsted
County, Minnesota; and
The West 30 acres of the North 60 acres of the NW '/< of Section 12, Township 106 North, Range
L3 West, lying North of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad right-of-way, Olmsted County.
Minnesota.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 4{ >
DATE: 11-05-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
"' IBLIC HEARINGS - Continued Item
PLANNING
z-_;
„ �M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-10 by Arcon Development to be known as Boulder
PREPARED BY:
Ridge. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 27.41 acres into 11 lots for single
Brent Svenby,
family development, 17 lots for a townhouse development and 2 outlots. The Plat also
Planner
includes the dedication of right-of-way for three public roadways. The property is located
along the east side of Bandel Road NW, south of Bandel North First Subdivision and
allows for the continuation of 28th Avenue NW.
November 1, 2001
Planning Department Review:
See attached staff report dated November 1, 2001, recommending approval subject to the following modifications /
conditions:
1. The applicant provide to the Public Works Department and the Planning Department copies of a private
roadway easement to ensure adequate access to Lots 1-10, Block 1 and Lots 1.7, Block 4. The easement
documents in recordable form shall be submitted with the final plat documents to the City for recording with
the final plat documents
2. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that
cash in lieu of land in amount of $55,950 will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat has stated in the
October 4, 2001 memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. Outlot B shall be dedicated to
the City after the applicant has graded, established turf and installed the sidewalk.
3. A temporary turn -a -round and associated easement shall be provided at the easterly end of Boulder Ridge
Drive NW to the Public Works Department prior to recording the Final Plat documents.
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 5, 2001 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center,
7. McGhie & Betts, Inc.
F7
I U N C I L ACTI 0 N: mown by: Second by: to:
M A' GOWZ-
SO•Y1.Z0
Lriz
_ . . ..
S
CYCIZ M ,I
9G21+�
S 3 .g.o.zo S
7,y'6Y1
;
0
.K
+N
cn b
it �i y
3 ,$��•r
�
41 f
�OLceS
R
leis
00iow
oo
ka' N
28THI AVfHUE
31 \ y( r
6A
!•I VI \ rit �- a6
4I \
WN
\ \ \ m _.__\....�
IIIl�� bra
' lei i
w
WIN
L I • --- R ,, St�
"-4
lit
—1 I I iOri 1� [Vi4
a:
i3ai+ve _
e q Ieva'or N O Y O M
a an•
M jI.TAN7 N M " W 0 tl 0 P. 1 3 0 4 tl [I yr
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
COUNTY OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Brent Sveri Planner
DATE: November 1, 2001
RE: Final Plat #01-10 to be known as Boulder Ridge
Planninq Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Surveyors/Engineers:
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Plat Data:
Arcon Development
7625 Metro Blvd. Suite 350
Edina, MN 55439
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
1. RPU Water Division
2. RPU Operations Division
3. Rochester Public Works
4. Rochester Fire Department
5. Rochester Public Works Department
6. Planning Dept. - Wetlands
1. Referral Comments ( 3 Letters)
2. Location Map
3. Copy of Final Plat
lM�Wh��
�N�M-i�Oa-Alr
Location of Property: The property is located along the east side of Bandel
Road NW and south of the Bandel North
Development.
Zoning: Lots 1-10, Block 1 and Lots 1-7, Block 4 is zoned R-2
(Low Density Residential). Lots 1-6 Block 2 and
Lots1-5, Block 3 is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family)
on the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: This development consists of 27.41 acres of land to
be subdivided into 11 lots for single family detached
homes and 17 lots for single family attached homes.
Two outlots are shown on the plat. Outlot A contains
stormwater management facilities and wetlands.
Outlot B will contain a mid -block pedestrian
connection.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GISfADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285.8232 - HOUBING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 507/2B5-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/2B5-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Boulder Ridge
November 1, 2001
Streets:
This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for one
existing roadway and two new roadways.
The first roadway labeled "Boulder Ridge Drive NW"
is designed with 60' right-of-way with a 36' wide
driving surface. This roadway will eventually provides
a connection from Bendel Road NW all the way
through the subdivision and intersect with 25th Avenue
NW.
The second roadway labeled "28th Avenue NW" is
designed with 60' right-of-way with a 36' wide driving
surface. The roadway continues to the north into the
Bendel North First Subdivision.
The plat also dedicates right-of-way for Bendel Road
NW.
Sidewalk: In accordance with current City policy pedestrian
facilities including pedestrian ramps are required
along both sides of all of the new roadways. The
applicant has entered into a pedestrian facilities
agreement to provide a 10' bituminous path along the
east side of Bandel Road NW.
Drainage: The grading and drainage plans have been approved
by the City of Rochester Public Works Department.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The applicant completed a wetland delineation
and received an Exemption for the filling of a portion
of the wetland.
Public Utilities: The City has approved the public improvement (water
main and sanitary sewer construction) plans for the
subdivision.
Spillover Parking: Spillover parking requirements were reviewed at the
time the performance residential development plan
was approved.
Parkland Dedication: The Rochester Park and Recreation Department
recommends that the parkland dedication
requirements for this plat be met via cash in lieu of
land in the amount of $55,950. Payment is due prior
to the recording of the final plat documents. The
applicant will be required to grade, establish turf and
install the sidewalk on Outlot B prior to deeding it to
the City.
General Development Plan: The proposed plat is consistent with the approved
Boulder Ridge General Development Plan.
Page 3
Boulder Ridge
November 1. 2001
Preliminary Plat:
A preliminary plat was approved for this property on June 4, 2001 with the following four
conditions/modifications:
1. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways
including along the road frontage of Outlet A and B. A 10' wide bituminous
pedestrian path is required along Bandel Road.
2. Parkland Dedication shall be met via cash in lieu of land. Outiots A and 8 shall be
dedicated to the City, with the pedestrian path constructed at the Developer's
expense, concurrent with construction through the City -Owner Contract Process.
The maximum finished grade for the pedestrian path shall not exceed 10%.
3. 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; right of
way dedication; turn lanes and contributions for public infrastructure.
4. The applicant shall complete a wetland delineation on the property and obtain the
necessary permits for the wetlands prior to submitting the final plat.
Planning Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and would recommend approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide to the Public Works Department and the Planning Department
copies of a private roadway easement to ensure adequate access to Lots 1-10, Block 1
and Lots 1-7, Block 4. The easement document in recordable form shall be submitted
with the final plat documents to the City for recording with the final plat documents
2. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs
for parkland and that cash in lieu of land in amount of $55,950 will fulfill the dedication
obligation of this plat has stated in the October4, 2001 memo from the Rochester Park
and Recreation Department. Outlot 8 shall be dedicated to the City after the applicant
has graded, established turf and installed the sidewalk.
3. A temporary turn -a -round and associated easement shall be provided at the easterly
end of Boulder Ridge Drive NW to the Public Works Department prior to recording the
Final Plat documents.
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
TO: Consolidated PlanningDepartment WORKS
P 201 4 Street SE Room 108
2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-3740
Rochester, MN 55904 507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/8101
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #01-10,on
the Boulder Ridge property. The following are Public Works comments on this request:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the
Development Agreement, and City -Owner Contract for this property and include.
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1709.89 per developable acre
Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1709.89 per developable acre
Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Connection Charge for the Bandel Rd NW frontage
@ $75.62 per foot of frontage.
Trunk Watermain J9655 @ $18,000 lump sum
Substandard Rd / TID J9860 @ 1917.04 per gross acre
:• Contribution for First Seal Coat @ $0.47 per square yard of roadway surface.
te Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division:
C:\WINNT\Profiles\plabsven\Temporary Intemet Files\01.1<931FP01-10 Boulder Ridge 5ubd.doc
40ROCHESTER PARK AND ROEATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE /G ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 4, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Preliminary #01-10
Boulder Ridge (REVISED 4/217/01)
Acreage of plat..........................................................
Number of dwelling units .............................................
Dwelling unit density ...................................................
Densityfactor............................................................
Dedication...............................................................
Fair market value of land .............................................
27.41 a
153 units
5.58 units/a
.0244
3.73 acres
$15,000 / acre
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $55,950 (3.73 acres X $15,000/a) with payment due
prior to recordation of the final plat.
Assuming that Outlot B is to be public property, the applicant should be required to
grade,establish turf and install the sidewalks prior to deeding to the City.
APPLICANT:
Arcon Development
7625 Metro Bvld, Ste 350
Edina, MN 65439
0:\D9T0TZ\2001\DEDICATI0N\NW 289E\BOULDER RIDGE.DOC
• 0
WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Application Number: G � :t*1-10 L 4, t
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
,ZA 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.
Other or Explanation
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
November 5, 2001 E-Z
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Rochester
RE: Final Plat Approval For Carriage Homes
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I worked for Carriage Homes as a Project Manager/Coordinator for 3+ years
ending in 1998. My pay for services rendered was to be based on units completed
(finished units). As of today, Carriage Homes owes me over $200,000.00 for services
provided on the Meadowbrook project (Northwest Rochester off of 43`" St.).
I have attached for your reference copies of the Arbitrator's Award and Judgment
Summary (showing the Judgment docketed in Olmsted County) together with other
supporting documentation. The reason I have been as yet unable to collect on this
Judgment is because as Carriage Homes moves from project to project, they start
up new corporate identities each time, running all new business through these new
entities, apparently to prevent anyone from catching up to them.
I know that these proceedings are not the proper forum in which for me to be trying
to collect the amount due, but so far I have not been successful in pursuing my legal
remedies. I wanted you to be aware of this situation, and I would deeply appreciate
any help you might be in getting this matter resolved.
Y rs truly,
William S. Keehn
General Contractor
SD1030.1/010928:10221448
Judgment Summary First
55-C8-98-002426 Contract Date filed: 08/14/1998
WILLIAM KEEHN,
CeAGE HOMES, INC., et al.
: only creditors entered on ACVD with participant numbers are displayed.
Entered: Docketed: at for $ 0.00
Debtors: 1 KEEHN, WILLIAM,
Creditors: 000
Entered: 11/22/2000 Docketed: 12/13/2000 at 02:00 p.m. for $ 189,132.78
Debtors: 2 CARRIAGE HOMES, INC.,
3 COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
Creditors: 1 KEEHN, WILLIAM,
End of information
SD1030.0/010928:10224957
Civil Disposition Inquiry Last
55-C8-98-002426 Contract Date filed: 08/14/1998
Title: WILLIAM KEEHN,
0vs. CARRIAGE HOMES, INC., et al.
sposition: Closed Part.#/Debtor: MULT Name:Multiple Debtors
Creditor(#'s N): 01
Comments:DOCKETED AGAINST CARRIAGE HOMES INC/COTTAGE DEVELOPMNT CO
TRANSCRIBED TO STEELE,RICE,MOWER,CARVER,WASHINGTON COUNTIES
Dates I Judgment Amounts
Dispostn
Judgment
Docketed
Time:
11/22/2000
11/22/2000
12/13/2000
200
* 2001 RATE = 6.00% --
Joint Debtors
I
2 3
Next
-Original- -Current Due-
$ 189132.78 Judgment Principal $ 189132.78
$ Costs/Disbursements $ 10.00
$ Accrued Interest $ 1007.64
* 2001 Int. as of 09/28/2001 $ 8,425.477
Apply Current Year Interest -Yes No Yes
$ 189,132.78 TOTAL JUDGMENT $
Total 2001 Interest Paid as of 07/13
198,575.90
$ 0.00
Executions
Code:_ D
A_dd/Update/Inquire/Return or
efault Judgment Notice
FC O1 02 03 04 06 07 11 12
Ryan & Grinde, Ltd.
Attorneys at Law
James P. Ryan, Jr.
Paul H. Grinde
Kristine L. Dicke
Wayne L. Mehrkens
Paul E. Deloughery
January 23, 2001
a
407 lath street N.W.
Post Office Box 6667
Rochester, Minnesota 55903.6667
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
CIVIL DIVISION
OLMSTED COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4TH STREET SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904
(507) 282.8118
(507)282-2275 FAX
rgattys@intonot.isi.net
Toll Free 1-888-313-2088
RE: William Keehn v. Carriage Homes, Inc., et. al.
Court File No. CS-98-2426
Our File No. 22/1066/98
Dear Court Administrator:
The judgment in the above referenced matter was docketed in this
court on December 13, 2000. At least 30 days have passed. To
date, the judgment is not satisfied. Pursuant to Minn. Stat.
Sec. 550.011, (a copy of which is. enclosed) please order the
judgment debtor to mail by certified mail to the undersigned, who
represents the judgment creditor, information as to the nature,
amount, identity, and locations of all the debtor's assets,
liabilities and personal earnings.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
RYAN & GRINDE, LTD.
aul H. Grinde
Attorney at Law
PHG/tks
Enclosure
CC: Mr. Bill Keehn
St. Charles Office: 313 West Sixth Street, P.O. Box 356, St. Charles, MN 55972-0356
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL
In the Matter of the Arbitration between
Re: 65 110 00065 00
William Keehn
vs.
Carriage Homes, Inc. and Cottage Development Company
- Rochester, Minnesota
ADMi1,11STRATOR: Jonathan B. Scherer
1, THE UNDERSIGN IM ARBITRATOR, having been designated in accordance with the
Submission to arbitration entered into by the parties, and having been duly sworn and
having duly heard the proofs and allegations of William Keehn ("Clsimane), and
Carriage Homes, Inc. and Cottage Development Company ("Respondent') having failed
to appear after due notice by mail in accordance with the Construction Industry Dispute
Resolution Procedures of the American Arbitration Association, hereby, AWARD, as
follows:
Respondent shall pay to Claimant the sum of Out Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand One
Hundred Seventy Nine Dollars and No Cents ($138,179.00) for unpaid claims on the
following:
Meadowbrook Phase I
Meadowbrook Phase 11
Extras due to Keehn
Respondent shall pay to Claimant attorney fees in the sum of Twenty Five Thousand
Nine Hundred Twenty Seven Dollars and Sixty Seven Cents (S25,927.67).
Respondent shall pay to Claimant pre judgment interest totaling S20,726.85 front January
12, 1998 through July 31, 2000.
The Hudson claims are hereby denied.
EXHIBIT
M
vC-�„ ^fit fi - --fi';ON 972490900E
nr.t4ie \Cl n.
_ 1
Re: 65 110 00065 00
William Keehn
VS.
Carriage Homes, Inc. and Cottage Development Company
- Rochester, Minnesota
Page 2 of 2
NO.0342 P, 5i
The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association ('tire
Association") and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrator totaling S4,699.04
shall be borne by Respondent. Therefore, Respondent shall pay to Claimant the sum of
S 1,149.04 representing that portion of Claimant's share of deposits previously advanced
the Association.
Respondent shall pay to Claimant post judgment interest on the above amounts at a rate
of fi% per annum commencing 30 days from the date of this Award, till paid in full.
The above sums are to be paid on or before 30 days from the date of this Award.
This Award is in full settlement of all claims submitted to this Arbitration. All claims not
expressly granted herein are, hereby denied.
SIGNED: � irf �., DATED: Od
Walt,B.Bo mnis A:b
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING �,7 .'
DATE: 11-5-01
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
-"'3LIC HEARINGS- Continued Item
PLANNING-�
t j �i4 DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-44 by Carriage Homes XVII Inc., to be known as Fox
PREPARED BY:
ridge Townhomes First CIC # 159 First Supplemental. This Plat proposes to subdivide
Brent Svenby,
14.97 acres of land into 64 lots for townhome development and 1 outlot. The property will
Planner
be served by private roadways. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial
Land Alteration permit to allow for changing grades more than 10 feet in certain areas
within the development. The property is located west and north of Meadow Lakes Drive
NW and south of 3rd Street.
November 1, 2001
The applicant has been laying sod on the areas in the first phase of the townhomes which previously had not been done.
Sodding should be completed prior to the Council meeting on the 5 h. It also appears that the sidewalk has been
constructed along Meadow Lakes Drive NW.
Planning Department Review:
See attached staff report dated November 1, 2001 recommending approval subject to the following
modifications / conditions:
1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland.and that
cash in lieu of land in amount of $29,640 will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat has stated in the
October 3, 2001 memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. Payment is due prior to the
recording of the final plat documents.
2. The documents assigning long-term maintenance of common lands and facilities shall be recorded
concurrent with the final plat documents (mylars).
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
2. The Council should include a motion to adopt findings to support either approval or denial
of the proposed Substantial Land Alteration Activity. Staff suggests one condition of
approval. See page 4 of the staff report.
Distribution:
p
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk x ,. Pe Zz;
�? cn
3. City Attorney P ti
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 5, 2001 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
7. South Eastern Engineering and Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc
)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by. to:
rn
LO
F- W
LL
� m
Z (tJ Q
W �_ F-
�ZW
m2w
Zg-1
spa
a
_ nco
o W m
C)HLLL
Z_
QZ
LL
0
U
L
wie-wa �ami w ui�o-us u�.i .. i
rwva H>t '+n••v+w a mm > xsot or M '� '
�.
"�NI DNI833NI�N8 N2 3 Hy[lOS
t.-
z
-
Fo
�.I
�
W
oN
N
QW cEQ
_
N
¢X
Q W
xm
ms
2
MM
0
N
n, --�- 1.. ,1 .,�f•� ,• Syr w,•,
]TH M ENGINEERING INC.
w +eu ewi. o ne.e.w.r. �m eeew
gym
ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Co h„ e, www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
Rochester Common Council
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: November 1, 2001
RE: Final Plat #01-44 to be known as Fox Ridge Townhomes First CIC
159 First Supplemental
Planninq Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Carriage Homes XVII Inc.
6750 Stillwater Blvd. North
Stillwater, MN 55062
Surveyors/Engineers: Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc.
1009 W hitewater Avenue
St. Charles, MN 55972
South Eastern Engineering, Inc.
40 161" Street SE, Suite D
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments: 1.
RPU Water Division
2.
RPU Operations Division
3.
Rochester Public Works
4.
Planning Dept. - Addressing
5.
Rochester Public Works Department
6.
Planning Dept. — Wetlands
7.
Rochester Building and Safety
Report Attachments: 1.
Referral Comments ( 3 Letters)
2.
Location Map
3.
Copy of Final Plat
4.
SLA Map
5.
SLA Letter
Plat Data:
Location of Property: The property is located west and north of Meadow
Lakes Drive NW and south of 3b Street NW.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 X on the City of Rochester
Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: This development consists of 14.97 acres of land to
be subdivided into 64 lots for a towmhome
development and one common lot.
BUILDING CODE 5071285.8213 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/286-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-B224
..pevwPLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
-�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1. 2001
Streets: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this
Plat. The property has access from Meadow Lakes
Drive NW. The roadways serving the townhomes will
be private.
Sidewalk: In accordance with current City policy pedestrian
facilities including pedestrian ramps are required
along both sides of all of the new roadways.
Drainage: The grading and drainage plans have been approved
subject to the approval of the Substantial Land
Alteration.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils
within this Plat.
Public Utilities: The City has approved the public improvement (water
main and sanitary sewer construction) plans for the
subdivision.
Spillover Parking: Spillover parking requirements were reviewed at the
time the performance residential development plan
was approved.
Parkland Dedication: The Rochester Park and Recreation Department
recommends that the parkland dedication
requirements for this plat be met via cash in lieu of
land in the amount of $39,640. Payment is due prior
to the recording of the final plat documents.
General Development Plan: The proposed plat is consistent with the approved
Fox Ridge General Development Plan.
Substantial Land Alteration
The applicant is also requesting approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land
Alteration according to Section 62.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual. Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for
excavation or substantial land alternation as part of a Type IIIapplication, such as a final plat,
subject to making findings established in Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the LDM.
This development includes a proposal for grading work which involves a grade change of 10-
feet or more from the pre-existing grades. The attached map labeled SLA Map identifies the
area on the site where the existing grades are proposed to be altered by 10-foot or more. The
attached letter and map from Pam Shakal of South Eastern Engineering, Inc. has identified
the location were the grading is taking place. Some of the material will be trucked off -site.
The grading work will be completed in about 30 days.
Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached.
11
Page 3 / C!
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1, 2001
Staff Suggested Findings:
If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alternation, staff recommends the
following findings to Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land
Development Manual:
62,1105
1) The activity should not result in danger to life or property. The slopes will be designed with a
maximum slope of 4:1. The cut/fill areas are not adjacent to any areas planned parks or
existing residential areas. The finished grading work will allow for townhomes to be
constructed. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards and be
approved by the Rochester Public Works Department.
2) The grading and drainage plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public
Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. Noise and dust control will
need to comply with City standards.
3) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized
in grading the roadways in the development. Some of the material will be hauled from the
site. Prior to material being removed from the site, the applicant shall submit a haul route
plan to the City Engineer for review and approval.
4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground and surface water
quality.
5) The proposed grading work should not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester.
There will not be any steep slopes or exposed rock faces. The natural topography of the area
will be re -graded to provide adequate slopes for dwellings, roads and drainage.
6) The result of the proposed activity will be compatible with existing development and
development anticipated in the future. The finished result of the grading work will allow for
development that is consistent with the land use plan and the approved General Development
Plan for the property.
7) The grading will be confined to the property and should not affect the use and enjoyment of
adjacent properties. The duration of the excavation activity is expected to be completed in
approximately 30 days.
8) The grading activity will only take place during the construction of the roadways and buildings
pads that are planned for the site. The grading is expected to be completed in approximately
30 days.
9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in
accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester.
10) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City.
Stormwater management will be provided for the development. The grading of these areas
will help provide the adequate drainage for the property.
11) The area of grading does not contain sinkholes.
12) The grading work is expected to be completed in approximately 30 days. The duration seems
appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project.
Page 4
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1. 2001
13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and
drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and
sediment control.
14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the
completion of the excavation activity. This surety can be provided through the owner -contract
process for this development. If grading is to occur prior to an owner -contract, a separate
surety will need to be provided.
15) The grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the Rochester Public Works
Department prior to any grading on the property.
The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146:
1) Prior to material being removed from the site, the applicant shall submitted a haul route plan
to the City Engineer for review and approval
2) Not applicable
3) Not applicable
4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and
drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and
sediment control.
5) Not applicable
6) Not applicable
7) Not applicable
8) Not applicable
Staff would recommend that prior to material being removed from the site, the applicant
shall submit a haul route plan to the City Engineer for review and approval.
Preliminary Plat:
There was not a preliminary plat for this property. No new right-of-way is being dedicated with this
Plat.
Mannino Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and would recommend approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's
needs for parkland and that cash in lieu of land in amount of $29,640 will fulfill the
dedication obligation of this plat has stated in the October 3, 2001 memo from the
Rochester Park and Recreation Department. Payment is due prior to the recording
of the final plat documents.
Page 5 1
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1, 2001
2. The documents assigning long-term maintenance of common lands and facilities
shall be recorded concurrent with the final plat documents (mylars).
3. Construction of concrete sidewalk is required along the entire frontage of 2itl Street
NW/Meadow Lakes Drive NW.
Page 6
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1, 2001
CITY OF ROCHESTER
ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
EXCERPTS
62.1102 Exempt Activities:
1 J Except as required for a reclamation plan, which may be imposed on any of the
following activities as part of any required City permit or approval process, the
provisions of these Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113 shall not apply to the following
activities:
a) The land area included within 15' or as reasonably defined by the City Engineer to
allow soil stabilization of the identified boundaries of a building submitted for a
building footing and foundation permit.
b) Stormwater management facilities or other public infrastructure approved by the City.
c) Excavations or blasting for wells, tunnels or utilities that have received all necessary
governmental approvals.
d) Refuse disposal sites controlled by other applicable City, State or federal regulations.
e) On -going cemetery (burial) operations.
f) Development activity for which a general development plan, subdivision permit or
other Type III approval has resulted in the review of the proposed cut and fill work and
for which a grading permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall
have made the findings established in Section 62.1105.
g) Uses in the Central Development Core (CDC) District.
62.1105 Findings Necessary for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit:
The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all
of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to
those listed in Section 61.146:
1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or
unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4)
proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways;
2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on
public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by
the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to
demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation,
the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all
of such mitigation activities are carried out;
3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and
maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will
be mitigated;
Page 7_1
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1, 2001
4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface
water quality;
5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the
natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects
are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration
of the site following completion of the excavation activity;
6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development
anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive
Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses,
existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and
other natural resources;
7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent
properties;
8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from
unsightly features of the excavation operation;
9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and
stabilization of cut and fill areas;
10) The excavation activity will not result in negative Impacts on drainage patterns
or stormwater management facilities;
11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other
natural features affecting ground water or surface waterquality,
12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is
appropriate for the size and location of the activity;
13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been
approved by the City;
14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after
completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits
reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan,
neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies.
15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building
code.
61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council
shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of
the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made:
1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian
circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards
to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will
be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose
Page 8 /
Fox Ridge Townhomes�
November 1, 2001
undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public
facilities.
3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate
protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be
created by the development.
5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on
adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the
site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent
properties.
6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing
adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles.
7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in
the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised
plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph.
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to
permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically
applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific
ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the
proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been
secured by the applicant.
61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application- for a development permit to
allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose
modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are
necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.146.
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/8/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 40 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final
Plat #01-44 on the Fox Ridge Townhomes First CIC#159 First Supplemental
property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property.
2. A City -Owner Contract has been executed for this development.
3. Construction of concrete sidewalk is required at the Owner's expense,
along the entire frontage of 2nd St NW / Meadow Lakes Dr NW.
Development Charges are addressed in the City -Owner Contract & Development
Agreement for this property , with the exception of:
4- Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division.
8 Street Name Signs
Plus "No Parking" signs on the curve of Meadow Lakes Dr.
C:%WINN-RProfileslplabsven%Temporary Internet Files10LK931FP01-44 Fox Ridge Townhomes First Supplemental CIC
159.doc
ROCHESTER PARK AND R14REATION DEPARTMENT!
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 -
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 3, 2001
TO: Jennifer Gayness
Planning
RE: Final Plat #01-44
Fox Ridge Townhomes First CIC #159
Acreage of plat..
Number of dwelling units .............................................
Dwelling unit density ...................................................
Density factor............................................................
Dedication...............................................................
Fair market value of land .............................................
14.97 a
64 units
4.28 units/a
.0244
1.56 a
$/a
I'll va')
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
24�Lyo
Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $2 with payment due prior to recordation of the
final plat.
Applicant:
Carriage Homes XVII
5750 Stilwater Bvid North
Stillwater, MN 55082
0:\DST0TZ\2001\DEDICATI0N\NW 2999\PDX RIDGE TKHMOMES.DOC
I
S�
Memo
To: Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department
From Randy S.Johnson
Date: October 1, 2001
Re: Final Plat #01-44 by Carriage Homes XVII Inc. to be known as Fox Ridge Townhomes First
CIC #1595 First Supplemental. This plat proposes to subdivide 14.97 acres of land into 64 lots
for townhome development and 1 outlot.
The above referenced Plat appears to indicate new construction that is regulated under the Building
Code and will require building permits. Complete plans and specifications are required to be submitted
for a building permits prior to construction.
The proposed construction appears to consist of attached single-family dwellings (townhomes) on
separate lots with property lines between the units. Please verify the following items:
Separate utility services (i.e. sewer, water, gas, electric, etc.) are required to be provided to
each dwelling unit. The utilities are not permitted to encroach onto or through the adjacent
lots.
- The dwelling units are required to be provided with fire rated walls at property lines in
accordance with the 1997 UBC Section 503.
Please let me know U you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you
0 Page 1
South Eastern Engineering Inc.
40 160 Street, SE ♦ Suite D 1 Rochester, Mn 55904
Phone 507 287-0110 4 Fax 507 286-9188 4 Email seengr@sparc.isl.net
July 23, 2001
Mr. Brent Svenby
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive S.E.
Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
RE: Exemption from Section 62.1101.2(a) for Fox Ridge Townhomes 1", CIC #159,
I` Supplemental
Dear Mr. Svenby:
The grading of the Fox Ridge Townhomes site will result in exceeding a 10 foot vertical cut in an
area between the proposed Meadow Lakes Lane N.W. and Prairie View Place N.W. This project
meets the definition of Section 62.1101.2.a.1(d) where the cut\fill involves a grade change of 10
feet or more from the pre-existing grades. The enclosed plan indicates the area of cut in excess of
10 feet. The raw cut volume is approximately 76,600 cubic yards. It is estimated that only 34,500
cubic yards of fill will be used on the site, thus the contractor wilrbe required to dispose of
42,100 cubic yards of excavation off site. The maximum extreme cut would be approximately 20
feet and that would occur at approximately station 1±10 (see attached profile).
Section 62.1102.I F provides for an exemption provided there are sufficient findings made as
contained in 62.1105. The following are suggested findings in support of the request: '
62.1105 (1-15)
1. The activity necessary to grade the portions in excess of 10 foot vertical cut will not result in
unstable slopes or unsafe access. The maximum proposed finished grade on this site is 4:1.
The area with the largest cut is in the interior of the property and thus will not create an
unsafe access problem to the site. The closest this grading in excess of 10 feet, gets to
developed property is 40 feet. The cut area is not adjacent to a public park or roadway.
2. The contractor will be required to meet the City's noise ordinance and will be responsible
for obtaining permission to use haul roads. The Contractor will be responsible for
minimizing dust on all haul roads and repair and clean up of haul roads when excavation is
complete. (See attached excerpts from the Specifications.)
3. See the attached excerpt from the project specifications regarding public safety and
convenience.
4. See attached excerpt from the project specifications regarding air and water poljutlon :'lie J
additional grading will not affect the air or water quality.
SEP 2 5 20M
0
5. The natural topography of the area will be re -graded to provide adequate slopes for
townhomes, but the overall scenic quality will be maintained. Also, the contractor is
required to seed and utilize erosion control mat on designated areas prior to building permits
being issued.
6. The grading is compatible with the proposed adjacent neighborhood developments.
7. The grading will be confined to the Fox Ridge Townhome property and will not unduly
affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.
8. The grading activity will take place for the entire site for approximately 30 working days.
The required buffer yards on the west, north and south will be installed prior to completion
of this project. (See attached plan.)
9. The grading plan will provide for proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the
codes of the City of Rochester.
10. The grading will not result in negative impacts on the drainage patterns. The site will drain
in four directions as the ungraded site does and will ultimately flow to twin ponds
constructed in the first phase and sized to receive this runoff.
11. The area of grading does not contain sinkholes or wetlands and will not affect the
groundwater or the subsurface water quality once restoration and stabilization is completed.
12. The grading of the entire site will take approximately 30 working days. This time frame is
appropriate for the sized and location of this activity.
13. Permanent and interim (during construction) erosion\sedimentation control have been
provided for in the grading plan. The city has approved the grading plan contingent upon the
SLA.
14. The contractor is required to provide a performance bond for all of the work on the site.
15. The activity is not associated with the building code ordinance 62.1100 and the standards in
the Land Developmental Manual and on file with Public Works shall apply to the design
standards and construction process.
Sincerely,
South Eastern Engineering, Inc.
-YCxrruL, �0.k.o-�
Pamela Shakal, P.E.
enc
cc Carriage Homes XVII
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11-5-01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING r -7'
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Reconsideration of bituminous plant included in Restricted
Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05, for property located south of 40'h St. SIN,
west of T.H. 63.
October 31, 2001
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 31, 2001.
Council Action Needed:
PREPARED BY:
Brent Svenby,
Planner
If the Council wishes not to extend approval of the bituminous plant, it should direct the City Attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order determining that there is no reason to extend
the Amendment to CUP #98-05 based upon the applicant's decision not to request such an extension.
Distribution:
:ity Clerk
:ity Administrator
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. John Arnold
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday November 5, 2001, in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
ACTION:
tion By:
Seconded By:
Action:
r
DATE:
TO:
FROM
RE:
Summary:
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
C a U N T, OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
October 31, 2001
Rochester Common Council
Brent Svenby, Planner
Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05, Reconsideration of
Bituminous Processing Plant south of 40'h St. SW, west of TH 63 and east
of 11'h Ave. SW.
On March 15, 1999 the City Council approved an amendment to Restricted Development
Conditional Use Permit #98-05, filed by Frank P. Kottschade, to allow for a bituminous batch
mixing plant and associated haul roads and stockpiling on property located south of 40'h St. SW,
west of TH 63 and east of 111h Ave. SW. The portion of the permit concerning the bituminous
plant was approved temporarily with a requirement that it be reviewed at a public hearing in July
2000. The City Council held this hearing in advance on March 6, 2000 in response to a request
filed by Mr. John Arnold. During the March 6, 2000 hearing, there was some confusion about the
scope and extent of the term "review" as it was found in the March 21, 1999 Findings Document.
In order to more adequately state the Council's March 31, 1999, decision and intent, and in order
to remove all doubt from the process, the Council amended its March 31, 1999 findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order. The Council also decided to extend that portion of the Permit
relating to the Bituminous Plant to November 6, 2000.
On November 6, 2000 the City Council held a public hearing on the operation of the bituminous
Plant. At that time there was no operational history for the bituminous plant. At the November 6,
2000 hearing, the Council instructed the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution (#787-00)
extending the approval of the bituminous plant until November 6, 2001. Resolution #787-00 is
attached for your review.
The property is served by a temporary driveway permit issued to SJC Properties, LLC on July 20,
1998 which serves the SJC Properties and Mr. Kottschade's land parcels. The Permit was set
expire on July 20, 2000 but has been extended to November 6, 2001. Since the Permit is set to
expire on November 6, 2001, SJC Properties, LLC has applied for a permanent driveway to 40'h
Street SW to be located at the existing temporary access location approved In July 20, 1998.
This permanent driveway request is currently being reviewed by the City. See the attached
letters regarding the permanent driveway request.
Recommendation:
At this time, there is no operational history for the bituminous plant since it has not been put into
use since the approval of the permit. Mr. Kottschade has contacted the Planning Department and
has stated that he wishes not to extend the portion of the Permit relating to the Bituminous Plant
since it has not been put into operation. In a letter addressed to the Mayor and City Council,
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING+HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 - WELLJSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/267.2275
PP AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
10l31 /01
Page 2 of 2
dated October 17, 2001, Mr. Kottschade declines to request or accept an extension of the
renewal of Amendment to Restrictive Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 to allow for a
bituminous plant. Staff recommends that the Council not extend the permit as requested by Mr.
Kottschade, as it relates to the bituminous plant, and that if the applicant wishes to locate the
bituminous plant on the property in the future, a request to amend to Conditional Use Permit #98-
05 shall be filed by the applicant. Staff suggest that the Council direct the City Attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order determining that there is no reason to
extend the Amendment to CUP #98-05 based upon the applicant's decision not to request such
an extension.
ATTACHMENTS;
• Map
• Resolution #787.00
• Latter dated October 17, 2001 from Mr. Kottschade
• Letter dated October 17, 2001 from Michael J. Nigbur
• Letter dated October 29, 2001 from John B. Arnold
• Letter dated October 30, 2001 from Michael J Nigbur
l?
v .... .� w,. a.. c. u..v .tlle SV✓:. .._......., u, _ .�.. , ....�........ .. � �.;' ... .� Y ;uif:' . . ..
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on March 15, 1999, the Common Council of the City of Rochester approved
an amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05, filed by Frank P.
Kottschade, to allow for a bituminous batch mixing plant and associated haul roads and
stockpiling on property located south of 40th Street S.W., west of TH 63 and east of 11t' Avenue
S.W; and
WHEREAS, as part of its approval of this amendment, the Council indicated it wanted to
review the operation of the bituminous plant at a public hearing no later than July, 2000, to
consider whether the permit should continue in effect beyond July, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, this issue came before the Council at a public hearing on March 6, 2000, for
clarification as to the Council's review of the operation of the bituminous plant; and,
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2000, the Council adopted Amended Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order (a copy of which is attached) which accomplished the following:
1. Approved the amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use
Permit #98-05 so as to expand a granular material processing area on the
south side of Willow Creek by approximately 9.42 acres subject to nine
conditions.
2. Temporarily approved an amendment to Restricted Development
Conditional Use Permit #98-05 so as to add a portable bituminous drum
mixer facility for a specific time period if the Applicant complied with nine
conditions. The temporary approval expired on November 6, 2000, but may
be renewed or extended by the Council at that time following its review of
the operation of the Bituminous Plant.
3. Rescinded the Council's March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and Order which it adopted in response to Applicant's request; and,
WHEREAS, this issue came before the Council at a public hearing on November 6, 2000,
and the Council concluded that the April 3, 2000, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law should
be reaffirmed, except that the phrase "November 6, 2000," as it appeared in the second
paragraph of the "Order', should be replaced with the phrase "November 5, 2001."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the April 3, 2000, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law be reaffirmed, except that
the phrase "November 6, 2000," as it appeared in the second paragraph of the "Order', should
be replaced with the phrase "November 5, 2001."
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS _&7;/ DAY OF_ 2000.
&ESZINN-?�OM UID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: -� !�
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS Q� DAY OF ew,_ 2000
MAYOR q'F SAID�ITY
(Sea] of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Z0na20001CUP.Amind9805(2)
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA
In Re: Restricted Development
Amendment to Amended
Conditional Use Permit Findings of Fact,
#98-05 by Conclusions of Law,
Franklin P. Kottschade and Order
On March 15, 1999, the City of Rochester Common Council conducted a public hearing,
upon notice to the public, to consider the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation in
response to a request by Franklin P. Kottschade (hereinafter "Applicant") for a Type III, Phase it
Amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05. The amendment would
allow the Applicant to expand a granular material processing area on the south side of Willow
('rPek by approximately 9.42 acres and to add a portable bituminous drum mixer facility
triereinafter "Bituminous Plant"). The mining operation is generally located on a portion of the
property bounded by 40" Street S.W., Trunk Highway 63 South, 11' Avenue S.W., (hereinafter
referred to as "Site").
On January 27, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing
and adopted a recommendation concerning the requested amendment. The Commission filed
its findings and recommendation with the Common Council pursuant to Section 60.532(4) of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances. This hearing resulted as required by R.C.O. §60.532(5).
At the hearing, Attorney John Arnold and other persons representing the Applicant
testified in favor of the Applicant's request. No one appeared in opposition to the request.
i
The Council adopted Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order which approved the
Applicant's request subject to nine conditions. (This document was signed on March 31, 1999).
In the Findings of Fact document, the Council included the following statement in its decision:
Council member Hansen indicated that the Council should review that portion of
the request concerning the operation of the bituminous plant no later than July of
2000. That review should come directly to the Council without payment of any
application or filing fee.
On March 6, 2000, the City of Rochester Common Council conducted a public hearing,
upon notice to the public, to review the Bituminous Plant's operation. During the March 6'"
hearing, there was confusion and doubt about the scope and extent of the term "review" as it
was found in the March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact document. Additionally, the, Council
determined that, since the Bituminous Plant had not yet begun its operation, there was a need
for another review to occur in the future.
In order to more adequately state the Council's March 31, 1999, decision and intent, and
in order to remove all doubt from this process, the Council has determined it is appropriate to
amend its March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. Furthermore, the
Amended Findings of Fact document will incorporate the Council's March 6, 2000, decision to
extend that portion of the Restricted Development Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #98-05
relating to the Bituminous Plant to November 6, 2000.
Accordingly, based upon the evidence presented at all of the public hearings, the
�ommon Council of the City of Rochester does hereby make the following findings of fact,
:onclusions of law, and order.
F
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 This matter is properly before the Common Council Pursuant to
p R.C.O. §60,532(5)
and Minn. Stat.
§462.3595, subd. 2.
2• Franklin P. Kottschade applied for a Type III, Phase It Amendment to Restricted
Development Conditional Use Permit #98-5 so as to allow for the following modifications
Permit #98-5: ons to
a) extension of the area designated for processing of granular materials by 9.4
acres to the west;
b) addition of a bituminous batch mixing plant, the location of which would be
limited to the most easterly part of the processing area and that includes the
following; addition of traffic associated
with the bituminous plant,
Processing of materials originating off -site as needed for producing and
Processingthe bituminous and an extension of the hours/days of operation
limitations for the bituminous plant from 7:00 am to 5:00
through Friday that currently applies to processing on -site to allow the plant
to operate 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. Monday
as needed; pm, Monday through Friday and on Saturdays
c) modification of haul roads; and
d) addition of stock pile locations
3• Multiple provisions of the Rochester Code of Ordinances apply in analyzing the
equest.
IIlows: 4• R.C.O. §61.146 lists the standards for conditional use permits and reads as
61.146 Standard for Conditional Uses:
The zoning ,council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditionaladministrator
unless one oor
r
more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made:
3
/ �/
1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parkin
pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent g and for vehicular and
Public streets and ways will
create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures
will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose
undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public
facilities.
3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate
Protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may
be created by the development.
5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to
adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of
the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability motorists traveling
adjacent
Properties.
The
6) adeqate Proposed ess to the s site, will create to the buildings undue
fire on ths'
safetyor hazards rg not providing
7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been a site, for emergency vehicles.
the Phase II site plan from the approved approved, there is a substantial change in
site lan
plans will not meet the standards provided by this (paragraph such that the revised
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to
permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically
applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific
ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the
Proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been
secured by the applicant.
5. R.C.O. §61.147 states that in considering an application for a development
P permit
allow a conditional use, the Council shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions
the extent they are needed to ensure compliance with the criteria provided by R.C.O. §61.146.
i
i
4 �
i
i
I
6. R.C.O. §62.824 states that when reviewing a condit;
ood districts, the following factors, in addition to the standards of IR.CIO use permit in any of the
considered: §61.146, shall also be
1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities
caused by encroachments.
2) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to
the injury of others.
3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these
systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary condition.
4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage
and the effect of such damage on the individual owner.
5) The importance of the services
community. provided by the proposed facility to the
6} The need for a waterfront location for the facility.
�) The availability of alternative locations not
Proposed use. subject to flooding for the
8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and
development anticipated in the foreseeable future.
9) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood
plain management program for the area.
10) The safety of access to the property in emergency vehicles. times of flood for ordinary and
11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate ofi
transport of the flood waters expected at the site. rse, and sediment
12) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of Paragraph 62.800,
5
7. Other ordinances that apply to this request include Sections 62.1006 and 62.1010.
8. Following its Janua
rY 27, 1999, public hearing, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the testimony, pp applicable criteria and recommended denial
of the Applicant's request.
9. The Planning and Zoning Department artment staff had recommended a
Applicant's request subject to the following eight conditions: Pproval of the
�1) Report dates included on the supplemental report do not coincide with
report dates on file with the Planning Department. The Applicant shall
correct dates or clarify with staff the reason for the discrepancies. Also,
corrections to the report be made that refer to available access to Highway
63 since no permits have been issued by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation for the mining/processing uses;
(2) The Applicant shall provide proof of approval from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation to utilize access directly to Highway 63 for
this use;
(3) Importation of materials for processing be limited only to that necessary for
the bituminous batch plant/bituminous production;
(4) All conditions, modifications or restrictions applied to conditional use permits
previously approved remain in effect except for the extension of hours/days
of operation applied to the bituminous plant which may operate from 7am-
7Pm, Monday through Friday and on Saturdays as needed;
(5) Additional signage and warning signals be utilized along 401 Street S.W.,
and Highway 63 to maximize safety and identify slow moving trucks within
the area;
(6) Access to Street S.W.,
to Higig east of Willow Creek, is temporary and direct
hway 63 for mining/processing uses has not been approved or
issued by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Applicant shall
identify alternative access routes and haul road accesses to public
roadways that may be utilized if the current accesses shown on the Plan
are not available for use in the future;
6
'(7) A wetland investigation shall be completed and approved for portions of the
Site not previously field -reviewed by the local government unit and the
Applicant shall obtain a No Loss Certificate, exemption or approved
replacement plan prior to disturbing the area;
(8) Revised plans be submitted to the Planning Department that correctly
reflect previous approvals and that include any modifications required
through this amendment.
10. At the March 15, 1999, Common Council public hearing, Attorney Arnold and the
City Attorney mutually agreed that the seventh condition should be amended to read as follows:
(7) Subject to the final result of any declaratory judgment action which may be
filed concerning this issue, a wetland investigation shall be completed and
approved for portions of the Site not previously field -reviewed by the local
government unit and the Applicant shall obtain a No Loss Certificate,
exemption or approved replacement plan prior to disturbing the area.
11. At the March 15, 1999, Common Council public hearing, Attorney Arnold testified
that the Applicant agreed to all eight conditions, including the seventh condition as amended,
agreed to a ninth condition that should read as follows:
(9) When the bituminous plant is operating, other adjacent mining operations
would not be operating so as to minimize truck traffic.
12. The Council adopted Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, dated
March 31, 1999, in order to memorialize its actions on March 15, 1999. A copy of this document
is attached and identified as Exhibit A. The March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact document included
the following statement:
Council member Hansen indicated that the Council should review that portion of
the request concerning the operation of the bituminous plant no later than July of
2000. That review should come directly to the Council without payment of any
application or filing fee.
13. The Council conducted the "review" as described above at a public hearing held
on March 6, 2000. During that hearing, there was considerable confusion among staff and
Council Members as to what was meant by the term "review" as used in the March 31, 1999,
Findings of Fact document.
14. Following the March 6, 2000, hearing, the City Attorney provided the Council with
various documents which will allow the Council to determine correctly its intent with respect to
the approval of the Bituminous Facility as well as the need for a review in July, 2000.
15. Specifically, the Council reviewed a transcript of relevant portions of the audio tape
of the March 15, 1999, Council Meeting, A copy of the transcript is attached and identified as
Exhibit B. That transcript indicates the Council intended to grant a temporary Restricted
Development Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #98-05 with respect to the operation of a
Bituminous Plant. Specifically, the temporary Restricted Development Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit #98-05 would expire in July of 2000, but would be eligible for renewal or
extension depending upon the Council's review of the operation of the Bituminous Plant and its
effect upon the adjacent properties.
16• The Council also reviewed Attorney John Arnold's February 9, 2000, letter to Mitzi
Baker. A copy of that letter is attached and identified as Exhibit C. In that letter, Attorney Arnold
states that "[W]e are also requesting that the permit for the operation of the bituminous plant be
extended to coincide with the length of time that the Restricted Development Conditional Use
'ermit #98-05 is in existence rather than having continued reviews."
8
to the terms [of the] temporary drive way [sic] permit.
Specifically the access to the site on 40'h Street was only
approved as a temporary two year permit. Any activities utilizing this access should be subject
2000."
The expiration of the permit is July 20,
18• The Council also reviewed Mitzi Baker's handwritten notes to her copy of the
March 15, 1999, Request for Council Action. A copy of her notes is attached and identified as
Exhibit E. In her notes, Ms. Baker states, .,approve till July 2000."
19. At the March 6, 2000, public hearing, the Council was unable to review the first
`--r operation of the Bituminous Plant as the plant had not yet begun operations. According to
Attorney Arnold's letter, the Bituminous Plant was not placed into operation during the 1999
construction season. See Exhibit C. The reason the Bituminous Plant had not yet begun to
operate, according to Attorney Arnold, is that the Applicant had not yet satisfied condition #7 as
amended.
1
'17. The Council also reviewed Michael Nigbur's December 18, 1998, memo to the
onsolidated Planning Department. A copy of that memo is attached and identified as Exhibit D.
In that memo, Mr. Nigbur states that "[tlhe various CUP Permits should be reviewed annually for
conformance of the original conditions.
This matter is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.532
and Minn. Stat. §462,3595.
2. The Council determines there is ambiguity and confusion concerning the use of
the term "review" in the Council's March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order. This document memorializes the Council's decision reached at its March 15, 1999,
meeting in response to the Applicant's request.
3. Accordingly, it is appropriate and useful for all parties concerned to adopt this
Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in order to supersede the March 31,
1999, document and to resolve all doubt and confusion.
4. By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Common Council determines
that there is a legal basis to approve the amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use
Permit #98-05 to allow the expansion of a granular material processing area on the south side of
Willow Creek by approximately 9.42 acres if the Applicant complies with the nine conditions
described herein.
5. By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Common Council determines
that there is a legal basis to temporarily. approve the amendment to Restricted Development
Conditional Use Permit #98-05 to add a Bituminous Plant for a specific time period if the
Applicant complies with nine conditions described herein. This temporary approval shall expire
on November 6, 2000, but may be renewed or extended by the Council at that time following its
review of the operation of the Bituminous Plant. The Council's decision on any renewal or
extension of this temporary permit shall be guided by the criteria set out in R.C.O. §§61.146,
62.708, 62.824, 62.1006 and 62.1010 as well as the nine conditions described herein.
10
6. By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Council determines that the
ie conditions and the temporary approval of the Bituminous Plant should be imposed,
pursuant to Section 61.147, to ensure compliance with R.C.O. §§61.146, 62.708 and 62.824,
ORDER
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §§60.532(5), 61.146,
62.708, 62.824, 62.1006 and 62.1010 does hereby approve the amendment to Restricted
Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 so as to expand a granular material processing
area on the south side of Willow Creek by approximately 9.42 acres subject to the nine
conditions listed herein.
The Common Council also temporarily approves the amendment to Restricted
Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 so as to add a portable bituminous drum mixer
ty for a specific time period if the Applicant complies with nine conditions listed herein. This
temporary approval shall expire on November 6, 2000, but may be renewed or extended by the
Council at that time following its review of the operation of the Bituminous Plant.
The Common Council also orders the rescission of its March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order which it adopted in response to Applicant's request.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this - day of April, 2000.
'of. zone\conCu,2. amd9B5. fof
Jo Hunziker, President of the
Qchester City Council
11
11
blow
ALL-AAERICA CM
ROCHESTER
October 17, 2001
John Arnold
SJC Properties, LLC
Suite 505
206 Broadway South
Rochester, MN 55904
RE. SJC Driveway to 40t8 Street
Dear Mr. Arnold:
tiVCHE>TER•tli\,
II1:1). \l Gi 51.e•�
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
201 4th Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
(507) 287-7800
FAX (507) 281-6216
Thank you for your October 11, 2001, letter regarding the status of any driveway permit
issued to SJC Properties.
After checking the official files of the Department of Public Works, I have found one
temporary driveway/right of way permit ("Permit") issued to SJC Properties, LLC. The
City issued this Permit on July 20, 1998, and was set to expire on July 20, 2000. The
Permit noted its use by SJC Properties' and Mr. Kottschade's land parcels. I enclose a
copy of that Permit for your review.
Although there was never a formally executed extension of this Permit, the City has
taken the position that the Permit was extended until July 20, 2001. Furthermore, that
Permit was extended to November 6, 2001, because of the City Council's November 6,
2000, Resolution (#787-00) amending the April 3, 2000, Amended Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order, concerning the Restricted Development Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit #98-05.
If you or someone else on behalf of SJC Properties wishes to seek an extension or
amendment of this Permit, or if there is a request for some other permit, please feel free
to direct that request to the City. At this time, the City staff members believe a request
for a further extension of this Permit beyond November 6, 2001, would be viewed
favorably.
If it is SJC Properties' decision not to renew or extend this Permit or to seek some other
form of access, please review the Permit's restoration requirement found in condition #3.
If you have questions regarding this issue please contact me.
Michael J. Nigbur
Land Development Manager
Enclosure
Cc: Stevan E. Kvenvold
Phil Wheeler
Terry Adkins
An Eguo(Oppomnity Emproyn
October 29, 2001
VIA HAND DELIVERY
MIKE NIGBUR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
201 FOURTH ST SE, ROOM 108
ROCHESTER MN 55904
RE: SIC Properties
Permanent Driveway Permit
40th Street Southwest
Dear Mr. Nigbur:
Pursuant to our phone conversation of today's date, I informed you that SJC Properties is
applying for a permanent driveway permit for its property located at the intersections of
Highway 63 South and 40th Street Southwest. The location of the permit is at its current access
on 40th Street Southwest. This is the same access as was previously permitted to SJC
Properties under Conditional Use Permit #97-17. Tt is my understanding there is no separate
permanent application form and that this letter serves as the permanent application. It is also
my understanding that there is no separate application fee.
It is the intention of SIC Properties to use the driveway perinit for the same activities as are
permitted under Conditional Use Permit #97-17, Gravel Mining operation.
Very truly yours,
Mm B. Mhold /
President
SJC Properties LLC
TOTAL P.02
Ail-AMERICA CITY ROCHESTER
ta —
October 30, 2001
John Arnold
SJC Properties, LLC
Suite 505
206 Broadway South
Rochester, MN 55904
t.KO"f i T E P.,
�S
0.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
201 4th Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
(507) 287-7800
FAX (507) 281-6216
RE: SJC Driveway fo 40'h Street
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Thank you for your October 29, 2001, letter, regarding the request for a "permanent
driveway" to 401h Street SW to be located at the existing temporary access location
approved in July 20, 1998.
As you are aware the City, State, and County have been working on plans over the last
several years for the TH 63 improvements/modifications in the area as well as
improvements to 40s' Street SW along the north side of the property that are needed to
support existing and new development. Staff will review your request and will among
other things determine if it is consistent with City's Official Street Map #12 as amended
and the Minnesota Department of Transportation Layout Plan and Right -of -Way Map for
the proposed improvements to TH 63 and 40th Street SW
During Staff review of your permanent driveway permit request we will continue to honor
the existing temporary driveway permit extension beyond the November 6, 2001
expiration date, with the conditions outlined in the original and extension permits.
If you have questions regarding this issue please contact me.
Michael J. Nigbur
Land Development Manager
Enclosure
Cc: Stevan E. Kvenvold
Phil Wheeler
Terry Adkins
Richard Freese
An Equaf Opportunity Empfoyer
FPANKLIN P. KOTTSCHADE
3800 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROC14ESTER MN 55901
PHONE 507-287-0909 FAX 501-288-0658
October 17, 2001 '
Rochester City Mayor
Rochester Common Council
City Ball
2010 St SE
Rochester MN 55904
RE: Renewal of Amendment Restricted Development Conditional U%'e Permit #98-05
to allow for a Portable Bituminous Drum Mixer FacilitY
Please be advised the applicant, Franklin p. Kottschade; declines to request or accept an
extension of the above referenced permit.
This action is a result of Mr, Kottschade's appearance before the Common Council on
three occasions (March 15, 1999; Apri13, 2000; and November 6, 2000) for said permit,
despite the fact the Portable Bituminous Drum Mixer Facility has never been activated,
and yet must continue to seek extensions.
Accordingly, Mr. Kottschade is of the opinion this constitutes Government harassment
and accordingly declines to apply for an extension.
Sincerely,
,.P 4
ranklin P.1Cottschade
CC: Steven Kvenvold, City Administrator
Terry Adkins, City Attorney
/ &
i
I
TOTRL P.62
I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ///
DATE: 11/5/01
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ITEM NO.
r
it cM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Type III, Phase I (#01-02) Appeal of the Type III, Phase I (#01-20) Variance Denial
Randy Klement
PI2nn r
November 1, 2001
Rochester Zoning Board o(Appeals Recommendation:
On October 3, 2001, the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance request of the applicant, David
Zitzmann, 218 Cheval Lane NE, Rochester. The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential)
zoning district.
The applicant had requested to create a parcel through the Metes and Bounds subdivision process that will
exceed the number of flag lots and/or lots with no frontage allowed in a subdivision
The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance request based on staff findings.
Council Action Requested:
Approve or deny the variance appeal by the applicant based on the original staff report and attachments
submitted to the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals for their October 3, 2001 meeting.
Attachments:
1. Copy of Variance Resolution and minutes of the October 3 d, 2001, Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting, to be signed by the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson at their November 5, 2001 meeting.
2. Copy of Staff Report and all attachments submitted to the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, dated
September 26, 2001.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 5,
2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center,151 SE 4' Street.
�
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
r
7Yk,_ I11, PHASE I DEVELOPMENT APC( —CATION
CITY OF ROCHESTER
The undersigned hereby makes application for a Type III Development as regulated by
Section 60.530 of the City of Rochester Land D
-
e
-velopment Manual.
NAME OF APPLICANT �14 V I D L I 1 Z M A N A)
ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: C,He-11AL
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (home) a19g 81 &7 (work) a8 / LY o 00
FAX NUMBER _(So?) a 01-Se206 E-MAIL (IF APPLICABLE)-& b GAYMEc. cn-ym
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY IF DIFFERENT THAN APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: L v T- / Kt t) EQ 1/t i�/Ju D c l l U I S 1 oN
`Tk AST --17
DATE:
Respectfully Submitted,
. &L)I D LI -M /4AIA) Zr,
(Owner or Corporation)
Submittal Instructions (see attached)
Return Application to:
DISTRIBUTION:
Planning Department (white)
City Clerk: (blue)
Applicant: (yellow)
(Address)
Rochester - Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Dr. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
rr
FORM%: 1920-30 Rev Me
C
J
Cheval Lane N.E,
is,
19°07'00" E� 124.98
20.
30' Utility Uti I icy
d Drt°eway Easement
Easement
� o S�aOt P o
0
° o n
O N N a
O O
O
z -
c
°
0
S89007'00"E Vs
S00°00'00"
2s
r62.01
"
2S' Utility "
Easement
lcact S
I a
N r1
l0 r\
102.02
Scale: i IMh - 60 Feet
• Denotes Monument Set
O Dandles Monument Found
Location Map
Scale t- a 3000'
O
O
O
O
O
O
CA WIll
CalleE PIAN
Tract A:
The North 205.00 feet excepting the most
easterly 148.50 feet of Lot 1, and also the South
33.00 feet of the North 238.00 feet of the East
62.00 feet of said Lot 1, Riverview Second
Subdivision, City of Rochester, Olmsted County,
Minnesota; subject to a utility easement over the
South 20.00 feet of the North 35.00 feet
excepting the most easterly 148.50 feet of said
lot.
Tract B:
Lot 1, Riverview Second Subdivision, City of
Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota,
excepting therefrom, the North 206.00 feet of
said lot, and also excepting the South 33.00 feet
of the North 238.00 feet of the East 62.00 feet of
said lot; subject to a utility easement over the
West 25.00 feet of the South 25.00 feet of the
North 230.00 feet of said lot
Driveway Easement:
°' 00"W The East 30.00 feet of the North 230.00 feet of
2Lot 2, Riverview Second Subdivision, City of
3020
Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota.
is
Centarline of
20' Sanitary Sewer
Easement, 8k 1-3 Pg 347
t'
jl J• li
�'I I
j kl U 200I
i
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
I hereby certlN Il Ns Rrmy'woo prepared by me a
under my dreci superAllon and Mal I am o duly registered
- lard surveyor under the lows of he Slate at Mlmesoki
Reg, No. 15229
Cedric Schutz
Odle Nov 7. 2000 ,ob Pis, 11919-00 A
LAND CONSULTAMS
a samaam MVed301
1418 Fiat M.enue N.E.
Rochastes MMesolo 55906
507.2e8-8555
Arend
Park
O
LL
E
N
S PYG LAS
CT
C
Location
218 Cheval Lane NE
F2
ROCHESTER
f{'/innelota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
Date: 10/23/01
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 a
Appeal #01-02 on the David Zitzman (218 Cheval Ln NE) property. The
following are Public Works comments on the proposal:
Public Works would not object to approval of the appeal, provided that a
Utility Connection Agreement is executed for "Parcel 'B"', prior to
connection to City sewer and/or water. Said Agreement will address the
applicable area charges for SAC & WAC, as well as, sewer & water
connection charges
C:%WINDOWS1Temporary Internet HeMOLK80224APPEAL01-02 Zttzman 218 Cheval Ln NE.doc
rp.0
we pledge, we deliver
October 24, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III, Phase I, Appeal #01-02 of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
denial on October 3, 2001, to create a parcel through the metes and bounds subdivision process
that will exceed the allowed number of flag lots and or lots with no frontage. The property is
located at 218 Cheval Ln. NE.
Dear Ms Gamess:
Our review of the referenced Variance Request is complete and we have no objections.
Water service is available to this lot.
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
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
/iq
SHARED DRIVEWAY AND BUILDING RESTRICTIONS
DECLARATION AND AGREEMENT \
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this � day of Ly 2001, by and
between James E. Hinz and Cathy D. Hinz, husband and wife ("First Parties") and David Arthur
Zitzmann and Sharon Lea Zitzmann, Husband and Wife ("Second Parties").
WHEREAS, First Parties are the owners of the following described tracts located and being
in Olmsted County, Minnesota, to -wit:
SEE Legal Description described as Tract 2-A and Tract 2-B, Attached.
WHEREAS, Second Parties are the owners of the following described tract located and being in
Olmsted County, Minnesota, to -wit:
SEE Legal Description described as Tract 1-A and Tract 1-B, Attached.
WHEREAS, there is a driveway located on Tract 2-A and Tract 2-B, as described on
attached "DRIVEWAY EASEMENT', hereinafter referred to as the "Driveway Area."
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the
undersigned owners agree as follows:
The First Parties shall and hereby grants to all Parties, and future owners of the
above -referenced Tracts, an easement over and across the Driveway Area for the purposes as
hereinafter described.
//Y
2. The traveled portion of the Driveway Area, hereinafter referred to as the "surfaced
area", shall not exceed 18 feet in width and shall be centered at, or near, the center of the Driveway
Area." This surfaced area shall be surfaced with bituminous material within two years of occupancy
of either Tract 1-B or Tract 2-13. The cost of surfacing the surfaced area shall be shared equally by
the owners of Tract 1-13 and Tract 2-B.
3. Only the surfaced area shall be used by all of the owners, their invites and guests for
the purpose of ingress and egress to and from the above -described tracts, and only to gain ingress
and egress to a single-family home, and associated structures. It is further agreed by all owners, and
it shall be binding on all successors and assigns that Tract 1-B and Tract 2-B shall be used only for
one single family home, and related structures, to be located on each said Tract.
4. No party shall make use of the Driveway Area, nor permit any invitee or guest to
make use of the driveway area, so as to block the driveway area nor to interfere with the use of the
driveway area by any other party or any invitee or guest. For example, no owner shall park, or allow
an invitee or guest to park on the Driveway Area.
5. Road construction costs and maintenance, repair, replacement and improvement,
including snow removal, shall be shared equally by the owners of Tract 1-B and 2-13. Unless agreed
by the owners of Tract 1-B and Tract 2-13, no party shall be obligated to contribute to the cost of a
road improvement which results in a driveway which is greater than four inches of bituminous
overlay, or other substantially similar material. Administration of the maintenance responsibilities
shall be determined by the owners of Tract 1-B and Tract 2-B.-
X.
6. Unless the owners of Tract 1-B and Tract 2-B agree to haul the snow away, the snow
which is removed from the surfaced area shall be placed within the Driveway Area. No snow shall
be left on any other owner's driveway.
7. In the event that any party constructs a separate driveway, and elects to abandon the
use of the Driveway Area, that owner's obligation to share in the expense of maintenance, repair,
replacement and improvement shall not be effected thereby, absent mutual consent of the owners of
Tract l -B and Tract 2-13. No portion of any easements granted herein shall be effected thereby.
8. Lawn maintenance within the Driveway Area located with Tract 2-A shall be the
responsibility of the owner of Tract 2-A. Lawn maintenance within the Driveway Area located with
Tract 2-B shall be the responsibility of the owner of Tract 2-B.
9. in the event of a dispute concerning the use of the driveway area of the costs of
repair, maintenance, replacement or improvement, such dispute shalt be settled by binding
arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The costs of
enforcing the decision of the Arbitrator shall be bome by the owner against whom the arbitrator's
decision is made.
These agreements shall be binding on the parties hereto, heir successors and assigns and
shall run with the land.
James E. Hinz Cathy D. 1412
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss
COUNTY OF OLMSTED )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of.. 2001,
by James E. Hinz and Cathy D. Hinz, Husband d Wife.
NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL `
m .
SIG'NATURE OF NOTARY UBLIC
RUTH M. REESE
1��!
NOTARY PUSLIGMINNESOTA
t '�. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES I-01.2W5
Sharon Lea Zitzmann
STATEOF
)ss
COUNTY OF Zkvnskp Xj
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this h9ftay of 2001,
by David Arthur Zitzmann and Sharon Lea Zitzmann, husband and wife.
NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL
eft MAW K PMKOS♦- _ U �.�
SIGNATUREofNbTARY PUBLIC
f
'T ROCriESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAA TMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
C a U.. Y OF wwwAmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Randy Klement, Planner {Z ,
DATE: September 26, 2001 1
RE: Variance (Type III, Phase 1), #01-20
Planning Department Review:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
ZONING:
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
ANALYSIS:
David A. Zitzmann
218 Cheval Lane NE
Rochester, MN 55906
♦.��O61i jA�9�/
Lot 1, Less the East 148.50 feet of the North
35.30 feet, Riverview 2nd Subdivision
R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential
Zoning District)
Attached
The applicant is proposing to create an additional lot through the Metes and Bounds
subdivision process. The applicant's existing lot (that part of Lot 1, Riverview Second
Subdivision) is approximately 54,788 square feet. The proposed subdivision will result
in a 27,672 square foot parcel on the north side of the lot with the existing single family
dwelling and a 27,116 square foot parcel on the south side of the lot, as indicated on the
applicant's site plan. Access to the proposed south parcel will be from the driveway
easement on the east side of Lot 2, Riverview Second Subdivision, as shown on the
Adjacent Parcel to the West Site Plan. This lot was subdivided in December of 2000.
According to Section 64.113(2) — Adequate Frontage Required of the City of Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: Where a flag lot or lot with no
frontage is proposed on an infill basis, the request shall be reviewed in light of the
existing lot pattern and access pattern in the area to ensure it will not become recurrent in
nature and that the number of such lots in a block is generally consistent with Section
64.11301fc1.
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 • GISIADDRESSING(MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSINGIHRA 507/285.8224
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285.8345
FAX 5071287-2275
emu. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
According to Section 64.113(1)(c) — Adequate Frontage Required of the City of
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: Flag lots may be
developed on a limited basis in subdivisions where individual development of each lot is
contemplated and the Road Authority determines that no future street access through the
property will be needed. The greater of one lot or 5 percent of the lots in a development
may be flag lots. Flag lots may be used to better use irregularly shaped properties or sites
with physical limitations, or to eliminate or reduce access to collector, arterial or
expressway streets. Flag lots shall not be permitted where they will increase the number
of lots that that take their access from major local, collector or arterial streets.
Also, according to Section 64.113(1)(e) — Adequate Frontage Required of the City of
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: On lots with no frontage
the minimum easement width shall be equal to the minimum required driveway width
plus four (4) feet. Requests for the creation of a lot with no frontage shall be
accompanied by proposed or existing documents which provide proof of easement for
access and utilities.
Riverview Second Subdivision, which was platted in the County in the 1960's and has
since been annexed into the City, consists of three (3) lots (see attached Riverview
Second Subdivision Plat). Access to all three lots is off Cheval Lane, which is a private
roadway. Cheval Lane also provides access to the eight (8) lots in Cheval Estates which
was platted in the City in 1991 (see attached Cheval Estates Plat) and is located directly
west of Riverview Second Subdivision.
As stated above in Section 64.113(1)(c) of the zoning ordinance, the greater of one lot or
5 percent of the lots in a development may be flag lots. There are only three lots in the
Riverview Second Subdivision and only one flag lot is allowed. Because Lot 2 of
Riverview Second Subdivision was subdivided with a flag lot in 2000, no additional flag
lots are allowed.
The applicant requests the following:
1) a variance to allow for one additional flag lot or lot with no frontage in a
subdivision.
The Planning staff suggested findings are:
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There are no exceptional circumstances or
conditions that apply to the applicant's property that may not apply generally to other
properties in the same zoning district. However, the applicant could replat the proposed
south parcel as one lot and be allowed to have that lot as a lot with no frontage.
REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request is not necessary to allow for
the reasonable use of the applicant's property. However, the applicant could replat the
proposed south parcel as one lot and be allowed to have that lot as a lot with no frontage.
Also, there is an existing driveway/access easement which allows for access to the
proposed parcel.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request would not appear to
be materially detrimental to the public welfare or detrimental to other property in the area.
However, the granting of this variance request would be detrimental to the intent and
purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
MIlVBvfUM VARIANCE: The minimum variances that would be necessary to alleviate
the alleged hardship would be a variance to allow for an additional flag lot or lot with no
frontage in a subdivision. This finding would not pertain in the case of denial.
Attachments:
1. Copy of Application
2. Copy of Applicant's Proposed Site Plan
3. Copy of Shared Driveway and Building Restrictions Declaration and Agreement
4. Copy of Site Plan of Adjacent Parcel to the West
S. Copy of Site Location Map
6. Aerial Photo of Riverview Second Subdivision and Cheval Estates Subdivision
7. Copy of Riverview Second Subdivision
8. Copy of Cheval Estates Subdivision
9. Copy of Referral Agency Comments
10. Copy of Findings for a Variance
Reviewed by: f
M
Mr. Randy Klement, Planner
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55404
Q
September 24, 2001
N
iL
Re: Type III, Phase 1, Variance Request 901-20 — David Zitzmann
N
tL
LLj
Dear Mr. Klement:
tLn
The undersigned homeowners of Cheval Estates would like to express our
r-I
concern and oppositiorcRo the zoning variance
requested by David Zitzmann of 218 Cheval Lane NE. We do not support
subdividing a second parcel of land on Cheval
Lane. The property next to the Zitzmanns, owned by Jim and Kathy Hinz,
has already been subdivided and it does not have
frontage road access.
After meeting with Mitzi Baker and Theresa Fogarty of the City Planning and Zoning Department on June 12", it is our
understanding that only one parcel of land in Cheval Estates is permitted to be subdivided on our street. You should also be
aware that Cheval Lane is a private road and the homeowners have been granted an easement for driveway access to their
properties. However, it is not clear that the property owners have the legal authority to expand their easement to include a
new homeowner. Since the owners of the private road were not notified before the City granted the Hinz's permission to
subdivide, the legal status of the easement has not been determined
We understand that one concern of the City is emergency vehicle access to the back lots. We are also concerned about
trash removal and how the additional homeowners will contribute to the maintenance of the road If you grant a variance to
subdivide the property, will the City be responsible for road repair to our private roadway due to construction vehicles?
We do not see any advantage to our Planned Unit Development by subdividing the property. This zoning ordinance is in
effect to protect all the property owners and we ask that you protect our rights by denying the variance request.
Sincere)
Craig Q611ins, 120 Cheval Lane NE
Kurt Hamann, 122 Cheval Lane NE
.�_ 2r_�L
Brian Flaen, 124 Cheval Lane NE
i Ono, ,, n..Qan
Tim Dunlap, 132 Che a1 Lane NE
45�� �_4 1� _�
Ang arcia, 13 Ch 1 9 1e NE
Gio i Speziali, 130 "1 Lane
U. I -to
[a TOMO,
MelissarGarci a
C su to peziali
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
-- 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE "-SUITE 100-
I ROCHESTER, MN 55904
PHONE (507) 285-8232
FAX (507) 287.2275
Date: August 31, 2001
To: Agencies Indicated Below
From: Jennifer Garness, Planning Department
Subject: Type III, Phase I, Variance Request #01-20 by David Zltzmann to create a parcel
through the Metes and Bounds subdivision process that will exceed the
allowed number of flag lots andlor lots with no frontage. The property Is
located at 218 Cheval Lane NE and is In the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Zoning
District.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on
October 3, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Councii/Board Chambers, located at 151 4th Street SE. In
order for the Planning Department to prepare a thorough review of this application, we would
appreciate receiving your comments by September 26, 2001. You may also appear at the
meeting If you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
City Agencies County Agencies Other Agencies
1, Public Works 14. Health Department 17. School Board
Richard Freese Rich Peter Jeff Kappers
2. Fire Department
Lyle Felsch
3. Crime Prevention
Darrel Hildebrant, Gov.
Center
4. RPU Operations Division
Mike Engle
5. RPU Water Division
Donn Richardson
6. Park & Recreation
Denny St=
7. Building Safety
Ron Boose
8. CltyAttomey
Dave Goslee
9. Downtown Dev. Dist.
Doug Knott
10. City Administration
Terry Spaeth
11. Susan Waughtal
Neighborhood Organizer
12. Transportation Planner
Charlie Reiter
13. John Harford; Planning
Dept.
15. Public Works
16. GIS Division
Randy Growden
OK / Julie Schletty
Oweet has no oblectdar
assuming there are no
relocation vests.
9/
18. Peoples Natural Gas
Neal Clausen
JYC]�wes'it
20a'6harter
Communications
21. MN DOT
Dale Maul
22. Post Office
Supervisor
23, MN DNR
Jim Cooper
24. Soil Conservation
Dept.
Dave Copeland
Floyd Whitaker
25. Peoples Coop
Rick Wellik
R
According to Section 60,417 in the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual, in tatting action on a variance request, the Board of Appeals shall
make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines:
60.417 Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request, the
approval authority shall make findings supporting the decision based on the
following guidelines:
1) The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this
ordinance 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 this 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.
The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the
result of an action by the.applicant or property owners who have control of
the property.
In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel
in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels
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 this ordinance.
2) The Board may grant a variance to the literal provisions of this ordinance
if it finds that:
a) there has been substantial and detrimental reliance in good faith by an
applicant who has received a permit or certificate issued in error by the
administrative official charged with enforcement of this ordinance, and
i
b) the mistaken issuance of the certificate or permit is not the result of an
action on the part of the applicant, the property owner, or any other
person or party who has had control of the property, to provide misleading
or incorrect information, or to knowingly withhold information necessary for
the administrative official to accurately review the permit or certificate
request.
3) The Board shall under no circumstances grant a variance that will allow a
use otherwise not permitted within the zoning district or any variance of
the elevation or levels for flood protection.
4) In granting a variance, the zoning administrator or the Board may impose
such reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be
necessary to accomplish, to the extent possible under the circumstances,
the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to be varied or
modified and to reduce or minimize potentially injurious effects of the
variance upon adjoining properties, the character of the neighborhood,
and the health, safety or general welfare of the community. A variance
and any conditions and safeguards which were made a part of the terms
under which the variance was granted are binding upon the applicant and
any subsequent purchaser, heir, or assign of the property, and any
violation ofa variance or its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation
of this ordinance and punishable as such.
l
r.
Page 3
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 3, 2001
Type III Phase I Variance Request #01-20 by David Zitzmann to create a parcel
through the Metes and Bounds subdivision process that will exceed the allowed
number of flag lots and/or lots with no frontage. The property is located at 218
Cheval Lane NE and is in the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Zoning District.
Mr. Klement presented the staff report dated September 26, 2001. The staff report is
on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Klement stated that the purpose of the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance is
primarily for new subdivisions and to prevent the number of flag lots with no road
frontage.
Mr. Haeussinger asked if the police and fire departments would have problems getting
into the lots.
Mr. Klement replied that when the adjacent lot was split, staff did not receive any
negative comments from those departments.
Mr. Haeussinger asked if Cheval Lane is a private Drive.
Mr. Klement replied yes.
Mr. Haeussinger asked how the access would be added if all of the neighbors did not
agree.
Mr. Klement replied that it is a private road and the maintenance of the road is
incorporated into their covenants, and the Zoning Ordinance does not enforce their
covenants.
Mr. Ellis asked if the Metes & Bounds on the adjacent lot is completed.
Mr. Klement replied yes.
Mr. Haeussinger asked what is being looked at for the Metes & Bounds process.
Mr. Klement replied lot size, and access to public roadways as well as other issues.
Mr. Staver asked if it would be better to re -plat.
Page 4 Gj
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 3, 2001
Mr. Klement replied that it would be a more desirable approach, but the cost for the
platting process is more than the cost of a variance.
Mr. Slaver asked why it would be a more desirable approach to re -plat.
Mr. Klement replied that splitting off a lot like this, it would be a more appropriate
process then to request a variance.
Mr. Staver asked if the same characteristics are looked at whether they go through a
Metes & Bounds or re -platting process.
Mr. Klement replied that is correct.
Mr. Staver asked if there would be a public hearing at City Council if there would be an
appeal.
Mr. Klement replied that is correct.
Mr. Staver opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Zitzmann, of 218 Cheval Lane NE, addressed the Board. He stated that the
sewer and water were run for these lots through the easement and made a loop into the
water main on East River Road. It is an eight (8) inch water main that they paid for. He
went on to state that he was told that there is an opening left for sewer and water in the
last three lots.
Mr. Ellis asked if there would be utilities going through the third lot.
Mr. Zitzmann replied that he did not know.
Mr. Ellis asked if there would be access where the dead end is.
Mr. Zitzmann replied no.
Mr. Staver asked if he would share a driveway with the other lots.
Mr. Zitzmann replied yes, it is written up that way now.
Mr. Ellis asked if there would be any issues for getting access on the private drive.
Mr. Zitzmann replied no.
Mr. Ellis asked if they had to renew the private agreement.
Mr. Zitzmann replied no. He went on to state that for garbage hauling and fire
protection there would not be a problem of access.
Page 5
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 3, 2001
Mr. Haeussinger asked what kind of material the access road is.
Mr. Zitzmann replied that it is crushed rock.
Mr. Staver stated that the agreement states that the road needs to have an impervious
surface within two (2) years.
Mr. Jim Heinz, of 210 Cheval Lane, addressed the Board. He stated that the roadway
was dedicated to the public by Mr. Hank Christianson. He went on to state that there
would be one house per parcel when the area would be developed.
Mr. Slaver asked if they had planned on including the new lots to share in the expenses
of maintenance for Cheval Lane.
Mr. Heinz replied that the cost of expenses are divided among the lots.
Mr. Craig Collins, of 120 Cheval Lane, addressed the board. He stated that there are
two separate agreements. He is concerned about where the road would be if there
would be third lot added. He does not want a new road put in front of his house.
Mr. Staver asked if there are any concerns as to who would pay for the upkeep of the
road.
Mr. Collins replied that there should be one agreement among the neighbors.
Mr. Staver asked if there would be a driveway behind Mr. Collins property, and what
would the setbacks be.
Mr. Klement replied that any setback would be from the property line. There is no
setback for a driveway.
Mr. Slaver asked why a turn around was not created when Cheval Estates was platted.
Mr. Klement replied that he did not know.
Mr. Staver asked if there is no public right of way for that road.
Mr. Klement replied correct.
Ms. Sharon Zitzmann, of 218 Cheval Lane, addressed the board. She asked if the
private lane and lot three have any relevance to the variance.
Mr. Staver replied that it is not directly relevant.
Page 6
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 3, 2001
Ms. Barbara Beaumont, of 122 Cheval Lane, addressed the board. She stated that the
road does not go through there, because it is ten (10) feet short. She asked if the fire
department had any response.
Mr. Klement replied no.
Ms. Kathy Heinz, of 210 Cheval Lane, addressed the Board. She stated that she is not
against developing Cheval Estates, she would like to see the neighborhood stay how it
is.
Mr. Staver closed the public hearing.
Ms. McCaleb asked if the three larger lots are part of the planned unit development.
Mr. Klement replied no.
Mr. Ellis asked who would require the plats of all the properties.
Mr. Klement replied that he is not sure if it is required.
Mr. Ellis asked what affect the variance has on the platting of this area in the future.
Mr. Klement replied that it is a unique situation, and that he cannot answer that.
Mr. Haeussinger stated that there has not been evidence submitted to grant the
variance.
Mr. Ellis stated that it appears that there is intent to re -plat the lots, and that this is the
real issue.
Mr. Haeussinger made a motion to deny Type III, Phase 1, Variance Request #01-
20 by David Zitzmann as'submitted with staff findings based on the exceptional
circumstances and reasonable use. Mr. Ellis seconded the motion'. The motion
carried 5-0.
FINDINGS
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There are no exceptional circumstances or
conditions that apply to the applicant's property that may not apply generally to
other properties in the same zoning district. However, the applicant could replat
the proposed south parcel as one lot and be allowed to have that lot as a lot with
no frontage.
REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request is not necessary to
allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property. However, the applica
0
Page 7
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 3, 2001
could replat the proposed south parcel as one lot and be allowed to have that lot
as a lot with no frontage. Also, there is an existing driveway/access easement
which allows for access to the proposed parcel.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request would not
appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or detrimental to other
property in the area. However, the granting of this variance request would be
detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance
and Land Development Manual.
MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variances that would be necessary to
alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to allow for an additional flag
lot or lot with no frontage in a subdivision. This finding would not pertain in the
case of denial.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
City of Rochester, Minnesota
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
DENIAL
Variance Request #01-20 (David Zitzmann)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed on behalf of the owners of the premises known as:
Lott, Less the East 148.50 feet of the North 35.30 feet, Riverview 2nd Subdivision asking the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Rochester to grant a variance to the provisions of Sections
64.113(2), 64.113(1)(C), and 64.113(1)(e) of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual to create a parcel through the Metes and Bounds subdivision process that will
axceed the allowed number of flag lots and/or lots with no frontage.
WHEREAS, the matter of such variance has been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator who
has submitted a report to the Zoning Board of Appeals in the Council/Board Chambers, 151 4th
Street SE, Rochester, MN, at 7:00 p.m. on October 3, 2001, at which hearing all interested persons
were given the opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Rochester as
follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS:
The premises described above is located in the R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) Zoning District.
Mr. Haeussinger made a motion to deny Type III, Phase I, Variance Request #01-20 by David
Zitzmann as submitted with staff findings based on the exceptional circumstances and
reasonable use. Mr. Ellis seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
FINDINGS:
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There are no exceptional circumstances or conditions that
apply to the applicant's property that may no apply generally to other properties in the same
zoning district. However, the applicant could replat the proposed south parcel as one lot and
be aflowedto have that lot as a lot with no frontage.
}j t:
I� a
t
REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request is not necessary to allow for the
reasonable use of the applicant's property. However, the applicant could replat the proposed
south parcel as one lot and be allowed to have that lot as a lot with no frontage. Also, the s
an existing driveway/access easement which allows for access to the proposed parcel.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request would not appear to be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or detrimental to other property in the area.
However, the granting of this variance request would be detrimental to the intent and purpose
of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
CONCLUSION:
The provisions of the Rochester Land Development Manual are hereby not varied as to the
aforesaid premises to the extent necessary to create a parcel through the Metes and Bounds
subdivision process that will exceed the allowed number of flag lots and/or lots with no frontage,
according to the plans therefore dated "Received August 30, 2001, Rochester -Olmsted Planning
Department".
Denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, on this 3rd
day of October, 2001.
This resolution was signed this _ day of
Chair of said Zoning Board of Appeals
Attest:
Zoning Administrator
Subscribed and sworn to before me this —day of 2001.
Notary Public
DISTRIBUTION:
City Clerk (Original) (Certified Copy) (Copy of Staff Report)
City Attorney (Certified Copy)
Zoning Administrator (Certified Copy)
Applicant (Certified Copy)
DENIAL DO NOT RECORD
2001.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11-05-01
61*01 *3N
PT TBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATINt
PLANNING
zr—1,�r
M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-45 by Rodney Younge to be known as Eagle Ridge Fifth PREPARED BY:
Subdivision. This Plat proposes to subdivide .77 acres of land into 2 lots for single family Theresa Fogarty,
development. The property is located along the east side of Aspen Place SW and Eagle Nest Planner
Lane SW and at the end of 4e' Street SW.
October 31, 2001
Plannin-g Department Review:
According to Section 61.221 of the Land Development Manual "A subdivision in which all proposed lots front on a platted or
dedicated street right-of-way and no major changes to the right-of-way are proposed may be exempted from the
requirements of this paragraph (Land Subdivision Permit).
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual, Section 61.225 and would recommend approval subject to the following condition:
1. Development related charges associated with this development shall be due within 30 days,
invoicing by the City, after Final Plat approval as indicated in the memorandum
from the Rochester Public Works Department, dated October 24, 2001.
2. Construction of concrete sidewalk is required at the Owner's expense, along the entire westerly
frontage of the property abutting Eagle Nest Lane SW and Aspen Place SW.
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the Applicant)
1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications
2. Recording Statement
3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement
4. Recording Fee
5. Title Opinion
6. 1 Original Plat Mylar
7. 2 Mylar Copies of Plat
Attachments:
1. Staff report dated, October 31, 2001.
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 I Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
on Monday, November 5, 2001 in the Council
Z
0
L I
G
l i;1Yd{2s �
J
iti
�a #STgS�
i
g
iss
£pptg:
!
y
pi
yggy F
1 d#
dF
3dF
s 0 y
t
it- if
$ !a
id
a 3r ! 33I
NOIS M IGEMS
6 m
o�
m
Nt=-•LWOLL
0
¢
NS
33tlld N3dSV q
Q
W
N ti
13831"1IH
m
0 0 1 9
r N
1
491! p 90'98
60,B9,f9
k MS
X
F
V
ISM 3-19V3
Final Plat #01-45
Eagle Ridge Fifth
600' Notification Distance
Ward 2 Marcoux
10/24/01
L
E
SUMMER
9
ROCHESTER-OLnISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, VIN 55904-4744
C O U N T Y O F www.olmstedcounly.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: October 31, 2001
�ii+i�•"'Crb
!elrNl�!!t!
�psoMion
�liii r�I�rvlN
RE: Final Plat #01-45 by Rodney Younge to be known as Eagle Ridge
Fifth Subdivision. This Plat proposes to subdivide .77 acres of
land into 2 lots for single family development. The property is
located along the east side of Aspen Place SW and Eagle Nest
Lane SW and at the end of 4th Street SW
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Rodney Younge
4033 Echo Point Road
Tower. MN 55970-6360
Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester. MN 55904
Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works Department
Rochester Park & Recreation Department
Rochester Fire Department
Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 Letters)
2. Copy of Final Plat
3. Location Map
Plat Data:
Location of Property: This plat is located along the east side of Aspen
Place SW and Eagle Nest Lane SW and at the end of
4a' Street SW.
Roadways: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this
Plat.
Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian Facilities are required at the Owner's
expense along the entire westerly frontage of the
property abutting Eagle Nest Lane SW and Aspen
Place SW.
BUILDING CODE 507/2B5-B213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285.8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
..,.,.PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC S071285-8345
FAx 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
i
Page 2
Eagle Ridge 5th Subdivision
October 31, 2001
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils
within this Plat.
Drainage: Grading Plans for Eagle Ridge 4'" and 5th
Subdivisions have been approved by the Rochester
Public Works Department.
Storm Water Management is addressed by previously
constructed private detention facilities for the Eagle
Ridge area.
Public Utilities: Utilities are currently available to serve the property.
The area included in this proposed subdivision is not
covered by an existing Development Agreement.
Developer related charges associated with this
development shall be due within 30 days, invoicing by
the City, after Final Plat approval as indicated in the
memorandum from the Rochester Public Works
Department, dated October 24, 2001.
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 3 spillover parking stalls. It appears as
though the additional parking can be accommodated
on the roadways and most likely within private
driveways, as well.
Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department
recommends that dedication requirements be met
via: Reduction in credits previously established as a
result of the 1997 dedication of the 6.04 acre park in
the Eagle Ridge Subdivision. The applicant currently
has 1.38 acres of dedication credits.
Preliminary Plat:
According to Section 61,221 of the Land Development Manual "A subdivision in which all
proposed lots front on a platted or dedicated street right-of-way and no major changes to the right-
of-way are proposed may be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph (Land
Subdivision Permit).
Planning Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, Section 61.225 and would recommend approval
subject to the following condition:
1. Development related charges associated with this development shall be due within 30
days, invoicing by the City, after Final Plat approval, as indicated in the memorandum
from the Rochester Public Works Department, dated October24, 2001.
Page 3
Eagle Ridge 5th Subdivision
October 31, 2001
2. Construction of concrete sidewalk is required at the Owner's expense, along the entire
westerly frontage of the property abutting Eagle Nest Lane SW and Aspen Place SW.
Reminder to Apolicant:
Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City/ Owner Contract for
construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision.
ROCHESTER
WinneJo la
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/24/01
/Z71/
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final
Plat #01-45 on the Eagle Ridge Fifth Subdivision property. The following are the
Public Works comments on the proposal:
The area included in this proposed subdivision is not covered by an
existing Development Agreement. Development related charges
associated with this development will be due within 30 days
invoicing by the City, after Final Plat approval.
2. Construction of concrete sidewalk is required at the Owner's expense,
along the entire westerly frontage of the property, abutting Eagle Nest
Ln SW / Aspen PI SW.
3. Stormwater Management is addressed by previously constructed
private detention facilities for the Eagle Ridge Area.
Development Charges applicable to the development of this property include:
•:• J8569 Baihly High Level Tower @ 0.77 acres x $1,225.50 per acre, plus 10
years interest @ 7.5% from 3/3/83, totaling=$1,651.37
J8072 Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to CCM @ 0.77 acres x $300 per acre =
$231.00
C:IWINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\0LKB022\FP01-45 Eagle Ridge 5lh Subd.doc
ROCHESTER PARK AND R-'-.REATION DEPARTMENT '
201 FOURTn STREET SE /
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 �7>
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 23, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Eagle Ridge 5th
Acreageof plat..........................................................
.77 a
Number of dwelling units............................................1
2 units
Dwelling unit density ...................................................
2.59 units/a
Density factor............................................................
.0244
Dedication...............................................................
.05 acres
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
Reduction in credits previously established as a result of the 1997 dedication of the 6.04
acre park in the Eagle Ridge Subdivision. The applicant currently has 1.38 acres of
dedication credits.
0:\DST0TZ\2001\DEDICATI0N\SW 2897\EAGLE RIDGE S.DOC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 7
DATE: 11-5-01
I`'I*NICHtR
PT TBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PLANNING
_M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-46 by THE Realty to be known as Northwest Plaza PREPARED BY:
Fifth Subdivision. This Plat proposes to resubdivide part of Lot 3, Block 1, Northwest Brent Svenby,
Plaza Subdivision into one lot for commercial development. The property is located north Planner
of Rogan Shoes and south of Econo Foods in the Northwest Plaza Shopping Center
November 1, 2001
Planning Department Review:
See attached staff report dated November 1, 2001 recommending approval subject to the following modifications /
conditions:
1. The applicant provide to the Public Works Department and the Planning Department copies of a private
access easement to ensure that there is adequate access to the /of. The easement documents in recordable
Form shall be submitted with the final plat documents to the City for recording with the final plat documents.
2. The owner shall payoff a proportional share of the current assessment balance for J9173 "Northwest Trunk
Sanitary Sewer" attributable to Lot 3, Block 1, Northwest Plaza Subdivision prior to the recording of the final
plat documents. The proportional share of the assessment balance shall be based on the area of the plat in
relation to the total area for Lot 3, Block 1, Northwest Plaza.
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
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
p
on Monday, November 5, 2001 in the Council
. Z)UNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
C.
V1053NNWH3153HDO8
VZVld MN
Sic
obi
2
Ps
as d
7
wm
E�
1
�
3 g
O
Q
m
ro? g
Ffa
i)
i N0018
IB9'Z8L
Z 101
,t�l,G l.a tC
I
T
l
/
J
I
t~i
I
�NuI
INIaaIi:_,
are
tl
N
H
�
le
J
CZ
H e
I
f l 01
W
if,
0
a
5
n
Z n
J
m
L
N
L
F—
�.'
--L-
w
VZH Id
YON
1
O
.a
N
Z
As
3
L
o
J
0�n
LL—
--_1—
_i1
0 N
—
Z'GLZ ,SY Z,9LnA401
a311"mn
I
•�
L:° �
:e
i E
a
eI
Ef
e
ER
�
_
L
Et
Pa
x
{EF
{ 1_I
E B
e �
w
,
tl t
a c
b
�
J
�iaEggF
6 t
f
aj
@
b ,#' ,
�.sFid
/V
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT OY pOCHESTER:.r//41F
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 .c'�,••' • •row
COUNTY OF OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning �o,••
�iNrrwV An'••.. •..
OR'�TED.AU GUST'S
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: November 1, 2001
RE: Final Plat #01-46 by THE Realty to be known as Northwest Plaza
Fifth Subdivision. The applicant is requesting approval to re -
Subdivide part of Lot 3, Block 1, Northwest Plaza Subdivision into
one lot for commercial development. The property is located north
of Rogan Shoes and south of Econo Foods in the Northwest Plaza
Shopping Center.
Planninq Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: THE Realty
2127 innerbelt Business Center Drive, Suite 200
St. Louis, MO 63114
Surveyors/Engineers:
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Plat Data:
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue BE
Rochester, MN 55904
1. Rochester Public Works Department
2. Rochester Fire Department
1. Referral Comments (2 Letters)
2. Copy of Final Plat
3. Location Map
Location of Property: This plat is located along the south side of 55ei Street
NW, west of the West Frontage Road of Highway 52.
The site is located north of Rogan Shoes and south of
Econo Foods in the Northwest Plaza Shopping
Center.
Zoning: The property is zoned Arboretum Special District on
the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: The applicant is proposing to re -subdivide a part of
Lot 3, Block 1 Northwest Plaza Second Addition into 1
lot,
Roadways: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this
Plat. The applicant will need to provide
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/205.8224
.�anw.. PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
i
Page 2
Northwest Plaza 5th Subdivision
November 1, 2001
documentation that access is provided to the lot.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils
within this Plat.
Drainage: Grading and Grading Plans have been approved for
the development on the lot.
Public Utilities: Utilities are currently available to serve the property.
There is a current assessment balance for J9173
"Northwest Trunk Sanitary Sewer" on the property.
The owner will be required to payoff a proportional
share of the assessment balance, based on the area
of the plat, in relation to the total lot area for Lot 3,
Block 1, Northwest Plaza.
Spillover Parking:
General Development Plan:
Preliminary Plat:
Parking for the development was determined at the
time of Site Development Plan Review.
The development of the property is consistent with
the approved plan for the Northwest Shopping
Center.
The property was originally platted in the 1992. The applicant is now proposing to re -subdivide
the property. No new right-of-way is being dedicated as part of this replat.
Planning Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the
following conditions or modifications:
1. The applicant provide to the Public Works Department and the Planning
Department copies of a private access easement to ensure that there is adequate
access to the lot. The easement documents in recordable form shall be submitted
with the final plat documents to the City for recording with the final plat
documents.
2. The owner shall payoff a proportional share of the current assessment balance for
J9173 "Northwest Trunk Sanitary Sewer" attributable to Lot 3, Block 1, Northwest
Plaza Subdivision prior to the recording of the final plat documents. The
proportional share of the assessment balance shall be based on the area of the plat
in relation to the total area for Lot 3, Block 1, Northwest Plaza.
Reminder to Applicant:
Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City/Owner Contract for
construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision.
i ylT
ROCHESTER
/P/inne9ota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/24/01
N
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 application for the a Final Plat #01-
46 on the Northwest Plaza Fifth Subdivision property. The following are Public
Works comments on this request:
Grading & Drainage Plans have previously been approved based on the
Final Site Plan submittal for the proposed development of this
subdivision.
2. Execution of a City -Owner Contract is required if the extension of Public
Watermain, and/or addition of Hydrant(s) is required for this development.
3. There is a current assessment balance for J9173 "Northwest Trunk
Sanitary Sewer', attributable to Lot 3, Block 1, Northwest Plaza
Subdivision, totaling $9,352.46. At a minimum, the Owner is required to
payoff a proportional share of the assessment balance, based on the area
of the proposed Northwest Plaza Fifth plat, in relation to the total lot area
for Lot 3, Block 1, Northwest Plaza.
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Inlemet Files\0LKB0221FP01-46 Northwest Plaza 5th Subd.doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /`rCr%
DATE: 11-5-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
DT T13LIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
_.A DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-47 by Oppidan Investment Company to be known as
PREPARED BY:
Northwest Plaza Sixth Subdivision. This Plat proposes to resubdivide part of Lot 1, Block
Brent Svenby,
1, Erickson's Subdivision into one lot for commercial development. The property is
Planner
located north of Rogan Shoes and south of Econo Foods in the Northwest Plaza Shopping
Center.
November 1, 2001
Planning Department Review:
See attached staff report dated November 1, 2001 recommending approval subject to the following modifications
conditions:
1. The plat shall be revised to identify the portion of an existing 20' utility easement located within the
northwesterly side of the plat.
2. The applicant provide to the Public Works Department and the Planning Department copies of a private
access easement to ensure that there is adequate access to the lot. The easement documents in
recordable form shall be submitted with the final plat documents to the City for recording with the final
plat documents.
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 5, 2001 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
JUNUL ACTION: Mouon by: Second by: to:
0
6
e 1 ter,°
I NOOIfl ,BO,CY.
NOISIAloen5
VZtlld S
MMHAON
f
�� va
i f
6 d
jjT{�
p
r T-
a
Y#
y
_�
EMI
(
F
0
2
W
g
�
T
�
gg
8
d
g
:y.
AI NVId DN1)I'dVd (INV 311S
3 e_
V10S3NNIW'S3lS3H:)ON ?
NOISIAIasnS H1XIS
VZVld 1S3MHAON
! i
/ R /
a •'e
x
U
� $o
`1 z
0
NO
n
i
f
`
5q F3
n ggSiS
.iil
I
ROCHESTER-OLDISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT uF,a°`•H-ESTER%I!,In.� 5
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 OA
C U u N„ a , www.olmstedcounty.com/planning c�..
kp •.
�'49 TEDAUGUST''
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: November 1, 2001
RE: Final Plat #01-47 by Oppidan Investment Company to be known as
Northwest Plaza Sixth Subdivision. This Plat proposes to
resubdivide part of Lot 1, Block 1, Erickson's Subdivision into one
lot for commercial development. The property is located north of
Rogan Shoes and south of Econo Foods in the Northwest Plaza
Shopping Center.
Plannin4 Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Oppidan Investment Company
5125 County Road 101
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments:
1. Rochester Public Works Department
2. Rochester Fire Department
3. Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division
Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 Letters)
2. Copy of Final Plat
3. Location Map
Plat Data:
Location of Property: This plat is located along the south side of 55`" Street
NW, west of the West Frontage Road of Highway 52.
The site is located north of Rogan Shoes and south of
Econo Foods in the Northwest Plaza Shopping
Center, just north of the proposed Northwest Plaza 51h
Subdivision.
Zoning: The property is zoned Arboretum Special District on
the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: The applicant is proposing to re -subdivide a part of
Lot 1, Block 1 Erickson's Subdivision into 1 lot.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/2B5-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/286-8224
.-weww PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 - WELL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Northwest Plaza 6" Subdivision
November 1, 2001
Roadways:
There are no new roadways being dedicated with this
Plat. The applicant will need to provide
documentation that access is provided to the lot.
Wetlands:
Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils
within this Plat.
Grading and Grading Plans will be reviewed at the
Drainage:
time a development plan is submitted for the property.
Public Utilities:
Utilities are currently available to serve the property.
RPU-Water Division indicates that there is a portion
of a 20' utility easement for a fire hydrant and water
main within the northwesterly side of Lot 1, Block 1
that must shown on the plat.
Spillover Parking:
Parking for the development will be determined at the
time of Site Development Plan Review.
General Development Plan:
The development of the property is consistent with
the approved plan for the Northwest Shopping Center
and the Arboretum GDP.
Preliminary Plat:
The property was originally platted in the 1992. In 1997 This portion of the property was replatted
as Erickson's Subdivision. The applicant is now proposing to re -subdivide the property again. No
new right-of-way is being dedicated as part of this replat.
Planninq Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the
following conditions or modifications:
1. The plat shall be revised to identify the portion of an existing 20' utility easement
located within the northwesterly side of the plat.
2. The applicant provide to the Public Works Department and the Planning
Department copies of a private access easement to ensure that there is adequate
access to the /at. The easement documents in recordable fonn shall be submitted
with the final plat documents to the City for recording with the final plat
documents.
Reminder to Applicant:
Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City/ Owner Contract for
construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision.
pu'_ 1!�4
we pledge, we deliver
October 24, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Final Plat #01-47 by Oppidan Investment Company to be known as Northwest
Plaza Sixth Subdivision.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and our comments follow:
1. Our records indicate there is a portion of a 20' utility easement for a fire hydrant and water
main within the northwestern side of lot 1, Block 1 that must be shown on the plat.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly your
s,
"W�
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Yaggy Colby Associates
Oppidan Investment Company
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
ROCHESTER
VV/innedota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/24/01
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 application for the a Final Plat #01-
47 on the Northwest Plaza Sixth Subdivision property. The following are Public
Works comments on this request:
1. Grading & Drainage Plans will be reviewed at the time a development
plan is submitted for this property.
2. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required, if the extension of
Public Watermain, and/or addition of Hydrant(s) is required to develop
this property.
3. An assessment for J9173 "Northwest Trunk Sanitary Sewer', has
previously been paid for this property.
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Intemet Files\OLKB0221FP01.47 Northwest Plaza 6th Subd.doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11-5-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
M DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #01-11 by Joseph and Wendy Postier and
PREPARED BY:
Western Walls, Inc, to vacate 8 feet of platted right-of-way lying westerly of Rose
Theresa Fogarty,
Heights Drive along Lot 1, Block 2, Rose Harbor Second Subdivision and 8 feet of
Planner
platted right-of-way lying easterly of Rose Heights Drive along Lot 1, Block 1,
Rose Harbor Second Subdivision. The platted right-of-way is located south of
Eastwood Road (Co. Road 144) along Rose Heights Drive.
October 25, 2001
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 3, 2001.
Staff recommends approval of the vacation petition as submitted.
The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this vacation request at the October 10, 2001 meeting. The
Commission recommended approval of the vacation petition.
Ms. Weisner moved to recommend approval of Vacation Petition #01-11 by Joseph and Wendy
Postier and Western Walls, Inc. Mr. Staver second the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Council Action Needed:
1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed; it should instruct the City Attorney
to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition as recommended by the City
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated October 3, 2001.
2. Minutes of the CP&ZC October 10, 2001 meeting.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicants: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
November 5, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4'a Street SE,
Rochester, MN.
6. McGhie & Betts, Inc.
:OUNCILACTION: Motonbx second
/5
STREET VACATION
VACATION DESCRIPTION (Rose Heights Drive):
The westerly 8.00 feet of Rose Heights Drive as dedicated
on the plat of ROSE HARBOR SECOND SUB-DMSION adjoining
Lot 1, Block 2 and the easterly 8.00 feet of said Rose Heights Drive
adjoining Lot 1, Block 1, all in said ROSE HARBOR SECOND
SUB-DMSION, Rochester, Minnesota
0
EXHIBjT
N
SCALE 1° = 20C'
e 6 _ COUN-fY ROAO 144 _�� •
f —ram 4 I 5 �g 8 Fs `
T 1
I` 8' STRESI 1 9 L I V C K 1 1
VACATION I 3� --T 1_ —�— — (� '
' I B S'10 EI' `TI 1, 12 I 13 14 i "I5
VACATION
POSE FEIGHHTT1S DRIVE
— �I
4 f �! I ` F10—F 11112 I
7 1 8 1 9 1 L JI
BLOCK
FOR
WESTERN 'HALLS, INC.
604 11TH AVENUE NE
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
55901
McGhie
eenaWting tnglnaa.
1a4a 3rd
SCAtE.• 1" = 200'
""7 ar
Betts lnc.
GATE :
Lend Sury yw
ACCT. NO.
507-280-39tg
RLE NO. :
NJB
1013 /06 70 I Cadd Na
BK. PG.
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAniMENT
l 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 F Rochester, MN 55904-4744
o a a X TV OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
�gINlD a.4
A O 1..lI@
■I�w_w_7�.ca.�rl1
lN�inrU'� ai���
F.
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: October 3, 2001
RE: Vacation Petition #01-11 by Joseph and Wendy Postier and Western
Walls, Inc. to vacate 8 feet of platted right-of-way lying westerly of Rose
Heights Drive along Lot 1, Block 2, Rose Harbor Second Subdivision
and 8 feet of platted right-of-way lying easterly of Rose Heights Drive
along Lot 1, Block 1, Rose Harbor Second Subdivision. The platted
right-of-way is located south of Eastwood Road (Co. Road 144) along
Rose Heights Drive.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner(s): Joseph and Wendy Postier
2112 Viking Drive NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Western Walls
604 NE 110 Avenue
Rochester, MN 55906
Architect / Engineer:
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Reason to Vacate:
The right-of-way was dedicated years ago using
design standards of a roadway meeting rural
design standards. Urban roadway design
standards will be used on the roadway when it is
constructed.
Referral Comments:
No comments received.
Report Attachments:
1. Vacation Petition
2. Location Map
Staff Recommendation:
In a previous vacation petition, the roadway right-of-way adjacent to other lots along this
roadway was vacated. In order to be consistent with right-of-way width for this roadway,
a vacation petition has been filed for these lots where the right-of-way has not been
vacated.
Staff recommends approval of the vacation petition
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/265-8232 • HOUSINGmRA 5071285-8224
..w.e rw. PLANNING/ZONING 507/2B5-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-B345
FAX 5071287-2275
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION:
Vacation Petition #01-11 by Joseph and Wendy Postier and Western Walls, Inc. to vacate
8 feet of platted right-of-way lying westerly of Rose Heights Drive along Lot 1, Block 2,
Rose Harbor Second Subdivision and 8 feet of platted right-of-way lying easterly of Rose
Heights Drive along Lot 1 Block 1 Rose Harbor Second Subdivision. The platted right-
lll��_ of -way is located south of Eastwood Road (Co. Road 144) along Rose Heights Drive.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Vacation Petition #01 11 by Joseph and
Wendy Postier and Western Wails, Inc Mr Staver seconded the motion. The motion
rarriari7.n" ••:�' s�..! ,..�,."',�"'Y .,#r .# „ r..e..,_-
Mr. Brent Svenby presen d the staff report, dated October 5, 20 , to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the chester-Olmsted Planning Deparyent.
Mr. Svenby stated that the deve er had concerns with r rd to providing more retail space
along 1" Street and also with the No uest to move the n entrance to the building at the
corner of Broadway and 1" Street. -
Ms. Wiesner asked if there was a height` pitatioryrn the CDC.
Mr. Svenby responded no.
Ms. Petersson asked how many parkingAa applicant was providing.
Mr. Svenby responded 18. He Indi?led that, as des ned, they do not meet the Ordinance
requirements. Therefore, the app' ant will either nee revise those spaces to meet the
standards of the Ordinance or f for a variance. He st\entrance
plicant did a parking
study, as well as the City. H tated that Doug Knott, fristration, was present to
answer any questions reg ing parking concerns.
Mr. Staver asked why aff was recommending that the oved to the corner of 1"
Street and Broadwa .
Mr. Svenby res nded that one criteria for an incentive development is nting bonuses in
exchange for' corporating features determined to be a public benefit. He ated that staff felt
that it see d to be more of a public benefit to have the main focal point on corner of ist
Street a Broadway.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/5/01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING 2� _ 9
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive Plan Policy on Affordable Housing and Diversity PREPARED 8Y:
Phil Wheeler, AICP,
Plannine Director
November 1, 2001
Background
As part of its review and endorsement of the 2151 Century Partnership Community Strategic Plan for Diversity,
the Rochester Common Council initiated the process of including two sections of that Plan in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The two sections include
• policies addressing affordable housing and diversity;and
• policies addressing environmental justice considerations in local infrastructure investment decisions.
The plan refinement process will be separate and different for these two policy documents. The environmental
justice policy will come through ROCOG before coming to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Council. The Council directed staff to review the affordable housing and diversity policies with the Rochester
Housing Council before initiating the hearing process.
Staff have reviewed the affordable housing and diversity policy with the Housing Council and the Rochester
Neighborhood Resource Center Board received their suggested revisions and support. The attached document
incorporates their recommended changes.
The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission conductedd-a hearing on the proposed amendment
at its regularly scheduled meeting of October 10, 2001, and voted unanimously to recommend
adoption of the attached Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Recommendation:
The 21" Century Partnership correctly identified diversity as one of the seven key make or break issues that the
community must address to succeed in the current century. Affordable housing is also a critical problem in this
community. Segregation of affordable housing is a serious threat to the future of Rochester. Planning staff
recommends your approval of this plan amendment.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator 1
2. City Attorney 41 l,
3. Planning Department File
COUNCIL ACTION: Motlonby: Second
ROCHESTER - OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE, SUITE 100, ROCHESTER, MN, 55904-4744
PH: (507) 285-8232 FAX: (507) 287-2275
To: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Phil Wheeler, AICP, Planning Director
Date: September 28, 2001
Re: Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment Addressing Affordable Housing
and Diversity
As part of its review and endorsement of the 21" Century Partnership Community
Strategic Plan for Diversity, the Rochester Common Council initiated the process of
including two sections of that Plan in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The two sections
include
• policies addressing affordable housing and diversity;and
• policies addressing environmental justice considerations in local infrastructure
investment decisions.
The plan refinement process will be separate and different for these two policy
documents. The environmental justice policy will come through ROCOG before coming
to the Planning and Zoning Commission for your review. The Council directed staff to
review the affordable housing and diversity policies with the Rochester Housing Council
before initiating the hearing process.
We have reviewed the affordable housing and diversity policy with the Housing Council
and the Rochester Neighobrhood Resouce Center Board received their suggested
revisions and support. The attached document incorporates their recommended
changes.
Recommendation:
The 2131 Century Partnership correctly identified diversity as one of the seven key make
or break issues that the community must address to succeed in the current century.
Affordable housing is of course also a critical problem in this community. Segregation of
affordable housing is a serious threat to the future of Rochester. Planning staff
recommends your approval of this plan amendment.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DIVERSITY
The City of Rochester is suffering from a critical shortage of affordable housing (for the
definition of this and other terms in italics, please see the glossary at the end of this
document). Rental vacancy rates for market rate units were estimated at around 1-2% in
the 1998 Housing Study prepared for the Olmsted County Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. Preliminary data from the 2000 Census indicates an overall rental vacancy
rate of 4% (which may include units under construction or already called for and
therefore not truly on the market). By comparison, the national average rental vacancy
rate from 2000 Census data is 6.8%.
Many area employers need entry level and other lower paid employees to fill the jobs
that they are creating. According to economic forecasters, the major impediment to the
continued economic growth of the Rochester -Olmsted community is the critical shortage
of affordable housing. The 218` Century Partnership Diversity Task Force Report
discusses the need to increase the supply of affordable housing and the need to provide
affordable housing in scattered locations throughout area communities.
Some neighborhood groups have opposed affordable housing proposals based in part
on concerns about increased traffic, increased crime, and adverse impacts on property
values. Opposition to affordable housing in areas adjacent to established neighborhoods
threatens to exclude affordable housing from newly developing areas. Such exclusion
may result both in a shortage of affordable housing as well as in a community that is
segregated by income class. Segregation by income class may lead to de facto
segregation by race in our community. Continuing to curtail the supply of land for
affordable housing in fringe locations will jeopardize the supply of affordable housing and
will result in concentrating affordable housing in a few heavily impacted neighborhoods.
Evidence from national studies confirms that scattered subsidized and other lower cost
housing development does not adversely affect housing values in adjacent areas. On
the other hand, studies indicate that segregating lower cost housing in a few
neighborhoods clearly destabilizes those neighborhoods, leading to declining housing
stock, declining performance in neighborhood schools, and other social problems.
We are at a crossroads in our community. We can design our future to consist of
integrated neighborhoods with an adequate supply of housing in a variety of price
ranges. Or we can design our community to consist of concentrated pockets of lower
cost housing isolated from the remainder of the community. The experience of other
cities in the US clearly indicates that integration is the more desirable future.
Dividing our community either by income or by race fosters inequity, isolation, barriers to
communication, and ultimately divisiveness. Class segregation, even without
corresponding race segregation, is inimical to the long term cohesiveness of our
community and to our quality of life. A community that is not integrated ultimately will
disintegrate.
Recommendations:
1. THE CITY OF ROCHESTER:
• support low income tax credit housing and other subsidized housing.
• accommodate private development proposals that include townhouses,
condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing as part of neighborhood
development areas.
16.12
FA
• enforce minimum standards for housing and enforce such ordinances as the
Disorderly Use Ordinance in order to address neighborhood concerns about
crime and potential impacts on property values.
• increase the supply of land zoned for lower cost housing, especially providing for
mixtures of housing by style and cost.
• provide for neighborhoods with housing that is integrated by income class as well
as by race, through density bonuses and other incentives, for example.
2. AREA DEVELOPERS:
• accommodate affordable housing up front as part of well -planned communities.
• provide for affordable housing as an integrated part of neighborhood
development plans
• address concerns related to traffic and property values.
3. REAL ESTATE MARKETERS, LANDLORDS, AND OTHERS WHO PROVIDE
GUIDANCE TO PEOPLE LOCATING IN OLMSTED COUNTY -
provide accurate information to new or relocating residents about all
neighborhoods, without making assumptions about the preferences those
residents may have based on their race or income; avoid steering.
• treat all housing customers equally
• characterize all neighborhoods accurately.
4. NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS:
• Neighborhood groups should communicate to their members
➢ that lower income households are not equivalent to lower quality families
➢ that the "goodness" of a neighborhood is not measured by the price of its
structures but by the character of its residents
➢ that the quality of a community is not measured by the degree to which it is
exclusive.
• Neighborhood groups need to focus neighborhood concerns about housing on
legitimate issues that can be remedied (accommodating traffic without disrupting
neighborhoods, ensuring good management of rental housing, and so on).
• Neighborhoods and the community need to create a welcoming environment in
all neighborhoods for persons of diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds.
Measures of Effectiveness
The following indicators should be relied on to measure the success of policy
implementation:
• For affordable housing, vacancy rates by price range for owner and renter occupied
housing.
• For the enforcement of minimum standards of housing and crime -free
neighborhoods, crime, police calls, and housing violation data.
/�
• For segregation, the "dissimilarity index," adjusted to reflect population size and
minority proportions in the community, representing the percentage of a minority
population that would need to move to a different neighborhood in order to result in
an even distribution of the population across the community.
• Also for segregation, the concentration of minority population, which can be
determined by calculating the weighted mean percentage of minority residents living
in blocks with minority residents. For the student population in Rochester in 1998,
blocks with any minority students averaged 39% minority students, as compared to a
district average of 15%.
• For segregating practices, records of complaints received by the Human Rights
Commission related to suspected block -busting, redlining, and racial or other
steering.
Glossary
For the purposes of this policy statement, the terms below have the following definitions:
• "Affordable housing" means housing that, through subsidy or other means, costs no
more than 30% of the household income of households earning 80% of the area's
median income.
• "Block -busting," a practice outlawed by the 1968 Fair Housing Act, means the
practice of encouraging panic selling among the white majority by inducing fears of
"neighborhood transition," and other code words for racial diversity in neighborhoods.
• "Integrated" means including low income and other minority populations in roughly
the same proportions as their proportions in the community, reflecting the goal that
neighborhoods include diverse populations while avoiding concentrated poverty and
racial segregation.
• "Neighborhood" means an area with generally identifiable geographic boundaries
roughly equivalent in size and population to the fully developed attendance area of
an elementary school.
• "Redlining" is the illegal restriction on mortgages in certain neighborhoods based on
their racial composition.
"Steering" is the practice of directing members of certain racial or income groups into
or away from certain neighborhoods, regardless of eligibility for or interest in
individual houses in other neighborhoods. High -income individuals may be directed
away from certain neighborhoods even if they express interest in houses in mixed
income, integrated neighborhoods. Low income or minority individuals may be
directed away from certain neighborhoods even if they would qualify as purchasers
of individual houses in those neighborhoods.
I
k
Page 12
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
Mr. Larson exp\ct
ncern with having to build a wall and footings to shield the containers.
He stated that id congestion and create a problem for trucks to maneuver around.
Also, it would bhibitive for them to continue to use the storage containers they
presently own.Ms. Petersson at Trademart was currently zoned.
Mr. Larson responded BAHe stated that they did not receive an/perty.
s they did not
know that they were to obta%rtidential
em.
Ms. Rivas asked if there are homes to the south of the
Mr. Larson responded no.
Ms. Rivas asked how many contain rs Trademart owne
Mr. Larson responded 70. He indicat that the ma' ity of them were painted.
Ms. Rivas asked how purchasing 70 con ine ould be less expensive than constructing an
additional warehouse.
Mr. Larson explained that the additiona]Xarkouse would cost approximately $2 million.
Mr. Robert DeWitz, of 604 11the A ue NW, chester MN, addressed the Commission. He
explained that he had semi -trailer that are park in subdivisions while the houses are being
constructed. He stated that th do not move the ailers often while constructing the
subdivision. He stated that t y keep their lumber iN the trailer-.
Mr. DeW itz a/iftherad been any complaints re ived over the years with regard to the
trailers.
Mr. Harford r. However, he indicated that pr sent text amendment would not
address the tDeWitz uses.
Ms Wiese` moved o continue City Inttiated Text Amend nt,#01 12 to October 24,
2001. ' M- Hod4son-seconded thb' otion...Ttie matt n came `T 0�' ,
Mr, l6rford asked the Commission to call him with any further sugge\tions
Commission took a five-minute break.
area developers neighborhoods and others to accomplish these goals.
&q
Page 13
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
Mr. Phil Wheeler presented the staff report, dated September 28, 2001, to the Commission.
The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Wheeler stated that Mary Gorfine and Bill Boyne were present from the 21" Century
Partnership to answer any questions.
Ms. Wiesner asked if a proposal comes before the Commission or Council with the wording
.'affordable housing", should it benefit the petitioner.
Mr. Wheeler responded that the Commission would need to use their own judgment.
Mr. Wheeler stated that the Plan talks about the desirability for providing for integration of
affordable housing into higher value housing. He explained that it does not guarantee that the
Council will approve affordable housing proposals that do so. However, it attempts to provide
direction for the City to provide for neighborhoods with housing that is integrated by income
class.
Mr. Wheeler explained that the minority population in Rochester has doubled, while segregation
has decreased. He stated that he thought it was due to the result of increased home ownership
by the Asian minority population and the surge in rental housing, which has been scattered
throughout the community. Currently, trends are good, but need to be monitored.
Discussion ensued regarding neighborhoods concerned with the value of homes during
developments.
Mr. Burke asked if the Plan is a precursor to inclusionary zoning.
Mr. Wheeler responded that the dispersion of rental housing and affordable housing appears to
be such that we do not need to adopt inclusionary zoning. However, if we see a trend toward
increased segregation, we may want to consider inclusionary zoning.
Discussion ensued regarding inclusionary zoning.
Ms. Mary Gorfine, of 2315 10'h Avenue NW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. She
explained that, when the project began in 1996, there were over 800 Rochester and Olmsted
County residents who participated in the process. Since then, there are many hundreds of other
community members who are working on implementation of lots of 216' Century Partnership
goals and recommendations,
Ms. Gone stated that most reasonable people do not object philosophically to the concept that
everyone should have access to safe and affordable housing. Implementing the process is
completely different and difficult.
Ms. Gorfine explained the connection between the social health of a community and the
economic health. She stated that the shortage of affordable housing is an impediment to
business expansion and ultimately an economic barrier to economic growth in a community.
Ms. Gorfine stated that she has been soliciting endorsements from organizations and local units
of government over the last year. She stated that almost everyone has endorsed the Diversity
Plan. She explained that the amendment before the Commission was pretty much what was in
the Diversity Plan.
Page 14
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
i Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Ms. Wiesner; moved to recommend approval of the, Comprehensive Plan Policy on
Affordable, Housing and Diversity as drafted. Mr. Ohly;seconded the motion. The motion
carried 7-0.
The staff report is on
Ms. Wiesner movec
Anderson; 'inc. with
at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Development District #22_;
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the
Administrative Assistant of City,
28,
Tn ?Fuq' ji Dy nrause-
a onded. the motion. The
memorandum from Terry Spaeth,
Ms. Rivas moved to,recortimend that;Dev o\r,mo
nt Dis#nct #22 and Tak increment
Financing District #�22 1 is consistent w tches"ter Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan. Mr. Staver seconded the motion Theon carried 7-0.
2. As may be brought up w
Ms. Rivas asked if t;d:
Ms. Petersson stateshe
ADJOURN:
Motion mad
Chair, adjourned t
Respectfully Submi
issio wanted to discuss wh to talk about residential parking.
ould circulate a -mails to deci a on a date and time.
Hodgson to adjourn, seconded by . Rivas. Ms. Petersson,
g at 9:55 P.M.
Philip H. Whee er, AICP Ms. Mary Petersson, Chair
jig
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /6' r
DATE 11-05-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
4E-_ /O
ITEM DESCRIPTION: City Initiated Text Amendment #01.11, to amend Section 61.211 of
PREPARED BY:
the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. This Section addresses
Brent Svcn,,,
when a general development plan is required.
Planner
October 30, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On October 10, 2001 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed zoning text
amendment.
The Planning & Zoning Commission found that the proposed amendment meets the criteria outlined in Paragraph 60.336 (2)
of the Land Development Manual and recommended approval of the proposed amendment.
Stever moved to approve Text Amendment #01-11 with staff suggested findings. Seconded by Hodgson. The motion carried
5-1, with Ohly voting nay
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 4, 2001.
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the text amendment, it should instruct the City
Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted. The Council's decision must
be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (see attached staff
report).
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
COUNCIL ACTION: Mown by: second by: to:
T
DATE:
TO:
FROM
RE:
ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPA...MENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
C c U x *. OF www,olmstedcounty.com/planning
October 4, 2001
Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
Brent Svenby, Planner
lturin�_�ix►
p"'W'ZManiut-
NV,nwI
Text Amendment #01-11, Initiated by the Rochester Planning and Zoning
Commission
Section 61.211 requires a General Development Plan for upzonings. The upzoning
districts listed in the Ordinance include the R-1x, R-3, R-4, M-1, M-2, B-1 and B-4 but not
the R-2 zoning district. Staff has required a General Development Plan be submitted for
any application requesting the R-2 zoning district. This section should be amended to add
that zoning property to the R-2 district requires a General Development Plan.
Text Amendment:
Section 61.211 to add that an upzoning to the R-2 zoning district requires a General
Development Plan.
The change is shown as underlined text in the following paragraph.
61.211 When a General Development Plan is Required:
Approval of a General Development Plan shall be required for any site where
the eventual platting of the property involves approval of a Type I II land
subdivision permit. A General Development Plan also shall be required for land
use plan amendments and for any upzoning to the R-1x, R2, R3, R4, M1, M2,
B1, and B4 zoning districts and for the division of any land zoned as such. No
Type III land subdivision permit shall be approved until a General Development
Plan for the property has been approved. A General Development Plan is not
required for Type I and II applications for which no TIR is required pursuant to
Section 61.520 and no new street connections are necessary.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION:
A decision must be supported by finding based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of
the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
a) whether there is a public need for the amendment;
b) whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City of
Rochester;
BUILDING CODE 507/285-B213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
,..,-.-,.. PLANNING/ZONING 507/285.8232 - WELUSEPTIC 5071285.8345
FAX 507/287-2275
Z'C�7 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
c) whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful.
Staff suggests that there is a public need for this amendment to make sure that the zoning
regulations are consistent. The amendment will provide clarification of regulations and
procedures for when a general development plan is required and this amendment will be lawful.
Staff recommends approval of this text amendment.
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
Discussion ensued reqardinq what meeting to continue the item to.
Mr. Staver moved to continue Type lll, PP a II Incentive Development Preliminary Plan
#00-35 by Rochester Development, Inc, t ovemb6r.14, 2001 to allow time for,
discussions regarding parking, aestheti and entrance to be discussed. Also; for
larger detailed drawings to be presente to he Commission. Ms: Rivas seconded the
motion. The motion carried 7.0.
City Initiated Text Amendment #01-11 to amend Section 61.211 of the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) to add that an upzoning to the R-2
zoning district requires a General Development Plan.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated October 4, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Wiesner stated that she would not participate in the discussion as a Commissioner, but
would sit in the audience and participate as an interested party.
Ms. Lisa Wiesner, of 3131 East River Road NE, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission.
She explained that she did not participate as a Commissioner as she believes she will have a
request regarding upzoning in the near future.
Ms. Wiesner asked that, if the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts are both considered low density
residential, why would staff require a general development plan for an upzoning.
Mr. Svenby responded that the Ordinance currently does not require a general development
plan for the R-1 zoning district. However, it is required for the-R-1x. He questioned why the R-
1x and R-2 zoning districts should be treated differently.
Ms. Wiesner explained that she disagreed that a general development plan should be needed
for the R-1x zoning district.
Mr. Svenby responded that the R-ix zoning district allows a number of different uses. For
example, manufactured home parks. When the Ordinance was revised a couple of years ago,
the Council expressed concern regarding making adjacent property owners aware of potential
development. Therefore, they added the requirement of general development plans in certain
zoning districts.
Mr. Svenby explained that the criteria that are used when reviewing general development plans,
include if there are adequate public facilities to serve any potential uses on the zoning districts.
Ms. Wiesner asked if it was being used more to protect what may be going in there and not
based on the density.
Mr. Svenby responded yes.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Mr, Staves tp9ved to recomr ertd approval of CCity Initiated Texf Amendment #01 1 l to ,
amend Section 61:211 of tite Rochester Zonin Ordihance and'Land bevelo meet Manual
Page 10 /
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
(LDM) with the staff -recommended findings. Mr. Hodgson seconded the motion. The
motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Ohly voting nay and Ms. Wiesner abstaining.
Mr. JohnVarford presented the staff report, dated October 1, 2001, to the
staff repoNs on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
The
Mr. Harford s ted that the Park and Recreation Department questioneo warming sheds would
fall underneath a definition of storage containers. He explained to Am that it wasn't his
intent. Therefor he suggested that warming sheds at City park;OK added to the list of
exclusions.
Ms. Petersson agreec\with the change.
Mr. Harford explained t\jve
tion referred to under " Storage Containers in Residential
Districts" and in the alteguage shouldrefer t ection 61.115 and not 61.115(3).
Mr. Harford pointed outommission need todiscuss whether or not they wanted to
allow storage containerestablishments ince exterior storage is not a permitted use
for retail.
Ms. Wiesner if they would be alto%
Mr. Harford stated that staff could
would be good for one year.
Discussion ensued regarding scrrE
Ms. Wiesner stated that the sugf/
Mr. Harford responded
Ms. Wiesner expressed
storage. /
for
is
purposes.
temporary use permit. He explained that the permit
e containers and long-term maintenance.
would be one way
containers be enclosed in an 8 foot high wall.
with people adding
it.
to the structure and using it as
Mr. Harford stated at the unit would be temporary. How er, the masonry wall would not be.
He explained that a use would be a permanent use there. a explained that a zoning
certificate would a required and perhaps a building permit.
Mr. Harford eklained that the intent is to screen the containers.
regarding the site impact.
Mr. Bur a asked if the containers would be required to be placed on a ved surface, if they
receiv d a temporary permit.
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1115101
A SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR I I _ / /
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Establishment of Development District # 20 and
Increment Financing District # 20-1
T.SPAETH
BY:
On October 1, 2001 the Council approved TIF District # 20-1 which provides for TIF assistance upon 21 lots in
the Rose Harbor Estates 2nd & 3rd Subdivisions. The approved TIF Plan provides for $210,000 (21 lots x
$10,000 / lot) in TIF assistance on an " up front" basis.
As the Council members are aware, there have been complaints received about stormwater runoff on the lots
located at the bottom of the hill in the Rose Harbor Estates area. The Olmsted County Board of Commissioners
recently expressed this concern to City Administration staff.
City Public Works staff is aware of the situation, and the plans are for future construction of a stormwater
detention facility to be located on the south side of 15a' Street SE upon property that the City already owns. In
order to facilitate the construction of these stormwater management facilities in a more timely fashion, the staff
has suggested that the tax increment plan # 20-1 be amended to include TIF funds to be used for the necessary
stormwater public improvements needed to alleviate the existing concerns and also to facilitate further
development in this area.
Public works staff has estimated that the necessary stormwater improvements will cost approximately $300,000.
Based upon that estimate, the previously approved TIF Plan # 20-1 has been amended to include and additional
$300,000 in the TIF Plan budget to provide for a funding mechanism for the needed stormwater management
improvements.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution approving the Development District # 20 and amended and restated Tax Increment Financing
District Plan # 220-1
1"
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
to:
lj
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1115101
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Establishment of Development District # 22 and Tax Increment
PREPARED BY:
Financing District # 22-1 for the Kingsbury Hills 2"d Single Family Housing Project
T.SPAETH
As part of "First Homes" program, the City has agreed to provide tax increment financing assistance for the purpose of
providing a number of affordable owner occupied single family dwelling units in the City. One of the developments
selected for participation in the "First Homes" program is the Kingsbury Hills Subdivision, in which 50 lots were selected
for participation. The first phase consisted of 25 homes and now this 2"d phase is proposed to include the remaining 25
homes.
The City is proposing to provide $10,000 per lot x 25 lots=$250,000 structured as an " up front payment' TIF project as
previously agreed to by the Council for single family TIF projects participating in the First Homes program. The
developer (Bigelow Enterprises) will be reimbursed the said amount at the time the home is sold to the eligible homebuyer.
The proposed tax increment financing district is set up wherein eligible homebuyer will be required to meet required
income limitations such that the TIF district will be a "qualified" TIF district. There is no LGA penalty or local
contribution requirement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution approving the Development District # 22 and Tax Increment Financing District Plan # 22-1
COUNCIL ACTION: Mown by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
iy
DATE: 1115101
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
r l 1�
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR
PREPARED BY:
WEATHERSTONE TOWNHOMES PROJECT (PHASES 1& 2)
T. SPAETH
Weatherstone Townhomes is requesting the City's assistance in financing their multi -family housing
projects through the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds.
The Phase I portion of Weatherstone Townhomes, consisting of 100 units (40 two bedroom and 60
three bedroom units) has nearly completed construction. In 2000, the City assisted Weatherstone in
obtaining $7.5 million in housing revenue bonds. A portion of those bonds were tax exempt and the
remainder were taxable bonds. Since that time, a larger allocation of tax exempt bonds have became
available, and Weatherstone is seeking to refund the previous bond issuance and refinance the
project to issue $9 million in tax exempt revenue bonds
The developer is also seeking to finance the acquisition and construction of the Weatherstone
Townhomes Apartments Phase II project, consisting of an approximately 160-unit multifamily rental
housing development (with approximately 20 one -bedroom townhomes, 78 two -bedroom townhomes
and 62 three -bedroom townhomes) and functionally related facilities, to be located at 50th Avenue
NW and 61 st Street. The units will be rented to persons and families of low and moderate income.
The maximum aggregate estimated principal amount of bonds or other obligations to be issued to
finance this Project is $20,000,000. The Project will be initially owned by Weatherstone Townhomes
Limited Partnership -- II. Shelter Corporation will be the initial manager of the Project.
The bonds or other obligations if and when issued will be payable solely from revenues of the
Project, and will not be backed by the full faith and credit of the City.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion by the Council to approve the multi -family housing program of the City of Rochester for the
Weatherstone Townhomes project. (The resolution adopting the housing program will be included as part of
the final bond resolution that will come to the Council in the near future.)
P
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
0 i
DATE:
11-5-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Works
L — /z/
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Permit Parking Changes within the Edison Neighborhood
PREPARED BY:
D. Rosman
This is a Public Hearing to establish Permit Parking on 5 blocks all located within Zone 6 (Edison
Neighborhood). The City Police have recommended that five of these blocks be converted from the 1
hour No Parking from 9:00am to 10:00am to the Residential Permit Parking System. The reason being is
that Police Staff is unable to patrol the area with the 1-hour restriction. The area is shown on the attached
map. The survey results have been reviewed as to meeting the requirements of R.C.O. #138. Staff finds
that only 8th Avenue / 400 meet the ordinance. Therefore this should be the only street converted.
Block street/row width # Yes #No # of owners % in favor Notes
8th Avenue SW / 400 block 24/75 4 1 6 66 % (1)
10`h Avenue SW / 600 block 27/75 0 4 4 0 %
I Od' Avenue SW / 700 block 27/75 2 1 7 29 %
71h Street SW / 900 block 26/75 0 1 4 0 % (1)
8`h Street SW / 900 block 30.5/75 3 0 6 50 %
(1) A "No Parking At All Times" Restriction exists on one side due to width. This is to remain.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph (7) to Zone #6 (Edison Neighborhood) of section L
"Residential Permit Parking" of the Comprehensive Traffic & Parking Resolution Book, to be effective
8:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday thru Friday"
�elfrom
7) 8`h Avenue SW / 400 block, on the west side of the street.
WUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
��
0
was
(D w+ 0)
t €Z
p a O
� N y
O c W
o !a
U c
�N
!
i
Pa
•
•
•
IR
a
±
;
$
g 8 8
R
:
a
R �•
R
..
R
�
�
MS 34V 6
S e m
N
�
n
• n
n
»
pn
M63�V9
pp
nn
pC
8
-
�
�
a
•
�
�
�
w
'
�
r
e
e
�
M63AV L
e
e
Y
9
e g
o®
co
M631V6
"—r—
-^pp
n
•-
m
am
51 �I N
tD
tD
rli
CD
-_
Lf)
I
03
_._
__...
N
O
N
t
O"
NCO
uwi
N
(n
` N
V
Z
f9
oa
d
O
w
o
w
a
0-
za_
J
N
m
I
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1 i
7 7 /
Reports & Recommendations:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Assistance Agreement with Bigelow & Sons Enterprises PREPARED
Inc. for the single family home construction in Kingsbury Hills Second Subd. I T.SPAETH
A Development Assistance Agreement between the City of Rochester and Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises, Inc. has been
prepared for the construction of owner occupied single family dwellings on 25 lots located in Kingsbury Hills Second
Subdivision. The Council previously approved establishment of a tax increment financing district in this subdivision. The
major points within the Development Agreement are as follows:
Responsibilities of the Builder: The builder is responsible for the construction of 25 single family owner occupied homes
on the 25 lots within the TIF district. Commencing of construction activities is to take place by November 1, 2001 and be
substantially completed by November 1, 2004. The homes must be sold to an eligible homebuyer that meets both the
"First Homes" eligibility requirements, along with the City's income eligibility requirements to ensure that the TIF district
remains a "qualified" housing district.
City's Responsibility: The Council has agreed to provide a total of $250,000 in assistance. The assistance is to be
provided "up front", and by that I mean that the City will pay Bigelow Enterprises $10,000 / lot (total $250,000) at the
time that Bigelow Enterprises sells the completed home to an eligible homebuyer.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council authorization for the execution of a Development Agreement with Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises, Inc. by
the Mayor & City Clerk for the Kingsbury Hills Phase 2 Tax Increment Financing project
IL -
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING i y
DATE: (1 /5/01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
RepWs & Recommendations City Clerk
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendments to RCO 107 -
Judy Scherr
At the October 15, 2001, Council meeting staff recommended that the City Gambling Ordinance,
RCO 107, be amended to clarify existing requirements and to conform to current State Statute.
Current State Statute defines trade area as the boundaries of the City of Rochester and any city
and township contiguous to such boundaries. (The City's current ordinance defines trade area as
only the City of Rochester and any city contiguous to its boundaries.)
A letter was sent on October 19d' to all holders of lawful gambling licenses notifying them of the
proposed amendment and giving them notice that monthly expenditure reports must be received
by the City detailing the expenditure of gambling gross profits. The letter also noted that 75
percent of expenditure of gross profits within the City of Rochester or trade boundaries must be
adhered to.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to adopt the proposed language amendment to RCO 107 and instruct the City Attorney
✓/ to prepare the required ordinance. It is suggested that the ordinance be given a first and second
v� reading at the November 5, 2001, meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION: MoUonby: Second by: to:
r
ALL-AAIERICA CITY
V,-e
October 19, 2001
ROCHESTER
.�ii�rreaa�a
To: Organizations Holding Gambling Licenses
in the City of Rochester:
JUDY SCHERR, CMC
City Clerk
201 4th Street SE, Room 135
Rochester, MN 55904-3742
(507) 285-8086
FAX #(507)285-8256
The City Council will be considering some proposed amendments to its current gambling
ordinance on November 5th, 2001, to clarify existing requirements and to conform to current
State Statute. A copy of the current ordinance and the proposed amendments are enclosed for
your information.
The City of Rochester's current ordinance does require that any organization holding lawful
gambling licenses in the City of Rochester must expend 75 percent of its lawful purpose
expenditures of gross profits within the trade area defined as the boundaries of the City of
Rochester and any city and township contiguous to such boundaries. This trade area consists
of the city of Rochester, the Townships of Haverhill, Marion, Cascade, Rochester and High
Forest and the City of Stewartville since it abuts High Forest Township.
Organizations have not been adhering to requirements of expenditure of funds or submission of
monthly reports and we will be expecting conformance with the ordinance requirements in order
to maintain the gambling license. Monthly distribution reports of expenditures must be
submitted to the City Clerk's Office at the end of each month specifically showing where the
monies have been expended.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk's Office.
Judy Scharr
City Clerk
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator
Terry Adkins, City Attorney
2n •rnunl nnnnnvninv •Fmnlnvar
IKj
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING
SECTIONS 107.02 AND 107.03 OF THE
ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING
TO THE EXPENDITURE OF GAMBLING GROSS
PROFITS WITHIN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 107.02 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
107.02. Reporting Requirements. Each organization licensed to engage in lawful
gambling shall keep records of its gross receipts, quantities of free play,
if any, expenses and profits for each single gathering or occasion at
which gambling devices are operated or a raffle is conducted. All
deductions from gross receipts for each single gathering or occasion
shall be documented with receipts or other records indicating the
amount, a description of the purchased item or service or other reason
for the deduction, and the recipient. The distribution of profits shall be
itemized as to payee, purpose, amount and date of payment. Each
organization also shall keep records of the amount of its lawful purpose
expenditures of gross profits derived from lawful gambling conducted or
located within and without the city's trade
area as required by section 107.03.
Section 2. Section 107.03 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
107.03 Limitation on Expenditures. A licensed organization conducting lawful
gambling within the city of Rochester must expend seventy-five percent
(75%) of its lawful purpose expenditures faF lawful puipeses an of gross
profits derived from lawful pwFpeses gambling conducted or located
within the city's trade area. The city's trade area shall be defined as the
boundaries of the city of Rochester and shall include any city and
township contiguous to such boundaries..
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
20CHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF 2001.
CHAPTER 107. GAMBLING
107. GAMBLING
107.01. State Gambling Law Adopted. Except as they may conflict
with the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 349, relating to the definition of terms, licensure,
and restrictions of gambling are adopted and made part of this chapter
as if set out in full herein.
107.02. Reporting Reguirements. Each organization licensed to
engage in lawful gambling shall keep records of its gross receipts,
quantities of free play, if any, expenses and profits for each single
gathering or occasion at which gambling devices are operated or a
raffle is conducted. All deductions from gross receipts for each
single gathering or occasion shall be documented with receipts or
other records indicating the amount, a description of the purchased
item or service or other reason for the deduction, and the recipient.
The distribution of profits shall be itemized as to payee, purpose,
amount and date of payment. Each organization also shall keep records
of the amount of its expenditures for lawful purposes expended within
and without the city's trade area as required by section 107.03.
107.03 Limitation on Expenditures. A licensed organization
conducting lawful gambling within the city of Rochester must expend
seventy-five percent (75%) of its expenditures for lawful purposes on
lawful purposes conducted or located within the city's trade area.
The city's trade area shall be defined as the boundaries of the city
of Rochester and shall include any city contiguous to such boundaries.
107.04 Hours of Lawful Gambling. Lawful gambling may occur in
an intoxicating or non -intoxicating liquor establishment only during
the time in which the intoxicating or non -intoxicating liquor may be
sold or dispensed.
107.05 Investigation Fee. An organization applying for or
renewing a gambling premises permit or a bingo hall license pursuant
to Minn. Stat. §349.213, subd. 2, shall be assessed an investigation
fee of $250.00. This section shall not apply to an application to
conduct gambling exempt from licensing.
(2009, 1/3/7.9; 2028, 3/5/79; 2218, 11/17/81; 2286, 2/23/85; 2391A,
11/20,84; 2425, 3/5/85; 2786, 12/19/91; 2990, 5/16/95)
(next page should be 322)
August 16, 1995 - Update 319
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE+I/5/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
G
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
TERRY ADKINS
ZU
GA. RESOLUTIONS
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
G. 3..ECSECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
T a) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 75.01 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances,
Relating to the Designation of Aspen Lane S.W., Within the Aspens Plat as Aspen Place S.W..
bi
) An Ordinance Rezoning Approximately 2.62 Acres of Land From the R-1 and AG Districts to
the M-1 District and Approximately 77.5 Acres of Land From the R-1, AG and M-1 Districts to the R-2
District, and Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, Said Property Located West of St.
Bridget Road East of Highway 63 and South of future 48'b Street SE Right of way.
�... MISCELLANEOUS
i
I
I
1
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: