HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/2006_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA ^�
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS D(o
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 23
REGULAR ADJOURNED
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
RIW
1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
1) George Kingsley Requests to be Heard
SEPTEMBER 18, 2006
7:00 P.M.
3-4 D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1)
Approval of Minutes
5-6
2)
Donation to Animal Control
7-10
3)
Permit for "Bridge to the Arts"
11-12
4)
Request approval of the Access Agreement with the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety for computerized criminal history access in
the City Attorney's Office
13-14
5)
Amend the Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc. to include
an update to the PFC application for the Rochester International Airport
15-16
6)
Lease agreement with Rochester -Olmsted County Joint Civil Defense
Commission
17-28
7)
Bid award to Road Constructors for the extension of Airport View Drive
SW
29-30
8)
Amendment of the Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts
Transportation Services Inc.,
31-32
9)
Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous City Activities
33-38
10)
2:00 a.m. Liquor Sales Review
39-40
11)
Application for Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License — Patrick Jerome
Devney dba Dream Lodge Gifts
41-42
12)
Transfer of On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor for TGI Friday's
43-44
13)
Approval of Accounts Payable
45-48
14)
Agreement with Driver and Vehicle Services — MN Department of Public
Safety
49-60
15)
Wetland Ordinance Text Amendment #06-01
61-62
16)
Donations to Police Department
63-64
17)
Donation to Police Department
Council Agenda
Monday, September 18, 2006
Page 2 of 3
65-66 18) Award of Contract: (J4946 & J4947) 2006 Bikeway Paving and
Reconstruction
67-70 19) Rochester City Lines/Sale of Transit Buses
71-72 20) Award of Bids/Restoration work at Civic Center and Third Street Parking
Ramps
73-74
21)
Contract with Rochester Armored Car Co., Inc.
75-80
22)
Membership in the LMC Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition
81-82
23)
Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with ISD 535 for the Century High School
Property
83-84
24)
Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Toyota (Lot 2,
Block 1, Canal Place)-J5245
85-86
25)
Real Estate — Deed correction
87-88
26)
Establish No Parking Zone, Overland Drive NW from 180 Avenue NW to
Highway 52
89-90
27)
Advertise for Bids: (J2261) Asbestos Abatement and Demolition of
Buildings located at 1330 & 1332 7"' Street NW
91-92
28)
Real Estate — Sale of Fire Station site — &h Street SE and To Avenue SE
93-94
29)
Development Agreement — Merchants Bank, National Association
95-96
30)
Contribution Agreement — Erik Kilen and Rochester Brick
97-98
31)
Revocable Permit: Park Place Motors — Lighting in East Frontage Road
Right of Way
99-100
32)
WRP — 2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 5
101-102
33)
WRP-2004 Plant Expansion (J4390) Change Order No. 8
103-104
34)
Advertise for Bids — Engine Generator No. 2 Replacement (Project J4399)
35)
Approval of Architect Contract for Station 5
36)
Request for Tree Planting Funds/RNeighbors
37)
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment #06-05 was adopted by the Council
on August 21, 2006. The second reading is scheduled for September
18th.
E) HEARINGS
105-106 1) 2007 Requests for the Community Development Block Grant Program
107-108 2) Consider an Amendment to Section 106A.03 of the Rochester Code of
Ordinances which would limit the number of dogs over 6 months of age
permitted to be kept on a premise to two or possibly three.
109-120 3) Final Plat #06-21 to be known as Salem Heights Estates Second located
between Salem Heights Lane and Salem Road.
121-122 4) Final Plat #06-22 to be known as The Gardens North Subdivision and
requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration Permit.
123-128 5) Vacation Petition #06-08 by Rochester Area Family Y to vacate a part of the
15-foot wide alley right-of-way located west of First Avenue S.W. and north to
the existing Rochester Area Family Y facility.
Council Agenda
Monday, September 18, 2006
Page 3 of 3
129-140 6) Annual Review of the Rural Service District Parcels
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
141-144 1) Sound Amplification Requests
G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
145-146
H) TABLED ITEMS
147-150 1) On -Sale Intoxicating (Exclusive) and Sunday Liquor Licenses — Robert J.
Rittenhouse dba The Roxy Bar at 324 South Broadway
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 9/
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
ITEM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
ORIGINATING DEPT: IT
CITY ADMINISTRATOR A
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.
t,OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 9/18/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
LETTERS AND PETITIONS
Administration
C ,
ITEM DESCRIPTION: George Kingsley Requests to be Heard
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
George Kingsley requests an opportunity to speak to the Mayor and Council about the zoning on his property.
Mr. Kingsley owns about 25 acres in Marion Township; the property was recently annexed and placed in the
interim zoning pending the creation of a general development plan for the property.
Mr. Kingsley is not satisfied with his dealings with the Planning Department related to his property.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
-M DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
MEETING
DATE: 9/18/06
ITEM NO.
D-1-34
PREPARED BY:
G. NEUMANN
This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can
approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an
opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda
approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council.
The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs:
1) Approval of Minutes
2) Donation to Animal Control
3) Permit for "Bridge to the Arts'
4) Request approval of the Access
Public Safety for computerized
Office
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
Agreement with the Minnesota Department of
criminal history access in the City Attorney's
Amend the Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc. to include an
update to the PFC application for the Rochester International Airport
Lease agreement with Rochester -Olmsted County Joint Civil Defense
Commission
Bid award to Road Constructors for the extension of Airport View Drive SW
Amendment of the Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts
Transportation Services Inc.,
Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous City Activities
2:00 a.m. Liquor Sales Review
Application for Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License — Patrick Jerome Devney
dba Dream Lodge Gifts
Transfer of On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor for TGI Friday's
Approval of Accounts Payable
Agreement with Driver and Vehicle Services — MN Department of Public Safety
Wetland Ordinance Text Amendment #06-01
Donations to Police Department
Donation to Police Department
Award of Contract: (J4946 & J4947) 2006 Bikeway Paving and
Rochester City Lines/Sale of Transit Buses
Reconstruction
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
[A
Page 2
September 18, 2005
20) Award of Bids/Restoration work at Civic Center and Third Street Parking Ramps
21) Contract with Rochester Armored Car Co., Inc.
22) Membership in the LMC Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition
23) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with ISD 535 for the Century High School
Property
24) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Toyota (Lot 2, Block
1, Canal PlaceYJ5245
25) Real Estate — Deed correction
26) Establish No Parking Zone, Overland Drive NW from 18"h Avenue NW to Highway
52
27) Advertise for Bids: (J2261) Asbestos Abatement and Demolition of Buildings
located at 1330 & 1332 7t' Street NW
28) Real Estate — Sale of Fire Station site — 20t' Street SE and 3 d Avenue SE
29) Development Agreement — Merchants Bank, National Association
30) Contribution Agreement — Erik Kilen and Rochester Brick
31) Revocable Permit: Park Place Motors — Lighting in East Frontage Road Right of
Way
32) WRP — 2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 5
33) WRP —2004 Plant Expansion (J4390) Change Order No. 8
34) Advertise for Bids — Engine Generator No. 2 Replacement (Project J4399)
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
A SECTION: vtctvtn/+I lmv vcr 1.
CONSENT AGENDA ADMINISTRATION
.M DESCRIPTION: DONATION TO ANIMAL CONTROL
MEETING S /
DATE: 9/18/06
ITEM NO. ^
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
The City has received an anonymous donation of $200 to the Animal Control Shelter for whatever
purposes they wish to use the money for.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion accepting the donation and appropriating the money to the 2006 Animal Control
budget.
:OUNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 9/18/06
A SECTION:
Consent
°M DESCRIPTION: Permit for "Bridge to
Arts"
Administration
ITEM.
Doug Knottt) i
The Rochester Downtown Alliance sponsored a competition for the creation of a mural to be displayed over
Civic Center Drive on the skyway bridge to the Civic Center. The unveiling of the work will coincide with the
start of Artstoberfest and may be displayed for as long as one year. The attached memo provides additional
detail on the project.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Permission from the Council for the display of the murals on the Civic Center Skyway bridge.
OUNCIL ACTION: MoBon by: Seeond by: to:
RDA
MEMO
To: Doug Knott
From: Elisha Anderson
Date: August 29, 2006
Subject: Skyway Art Competition specs
The P Annual Bridge to the Arts competition is meant to highlight the thriving arts district
in downtown Rochester; this is the area that contains the library, art center and civic center
complex. Artists from all over the southeastern region of Minnesota were challenged to create
two dimensional artwork(s) depicting whatever topic they desired. Artists may either create
one image to be reproduced on both sides of the skyway or they were given the option of
creating two separate images, a different one for each side. The artwork will be judged by an
expert panel and one winner and three finalists will be chosen. This will be an annual event
so the project is intended to stay up on the skyway for one year.
The art will be reproduced onto large vinyl/scrim material measuring approximately 24 ft
wide by 8ft tall and clamped onto the center of the skyway between the Civic Center and
Civic Center/Library ramp. This material is similar to the material currently used to create
billboards. It allows light to pass through, but not the view. The vinyl pieces will be installed
above the smaller mullion window sections at the bottom. This is to allow people walking
inside to look underneath the artwork to see to the street below. The artwork will be printed
on both sides so that it can read it from within the skyway and outside on the street.
For the production of the vinyl pieces we will be utilizing the services of Visual Impact &
Heritage Art in Minneapolis. Our production contact is Chuck Tracey. He was recommended
to us from graphic specialists at the Mayo Clinic who have worked with him on numerous
public projects there.
Elisha Anderson -Director of Communications, Events & Media
220 South Broadway - Suite 100 Rochester, Minnesota 55904
Telephone: 507.424.2866 FAX 507.282.8960
The installation company is the local Rochester Sign Service and our contact there is Bob
Wangsness. Rochester Sign Service and Visual Impact have been in contact numerous times
and are aware of what is needed to install the project safely and for longevity. The sign
company would prefer to do the installation on Friday, September 296 so the city would
need to accommodate some street closing/lane disruption for the installation which should
only take half of a day. Do we need any special permitting for this?
We would like the artwork to be seen during the day and also highlighted at night. In that
regard, we would like the city to set up some sort of lighting, up on the street lights if
possible, which would come on and illuminate both the north and south facing pieces. It
would be ideal if somehow it could tie in with the automatic street lights.
Here is the current approximate timeline:
End of August/early September choose and announce winner and three finalists
Early -Mid -September Artwork gets produced
September 29-installation of artwork
October 1- Bridge to the Arts unveiling, Mayoral ARTStober Kick-off
Elisha Anderson -Director of Communications, Events & Media
220 South Broadway - Suite 100 Rochester, Minnesota 55904
Telephone'. 507.424.2866 FAX: 507.282.8960
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING l
DATE: 911814
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
City Attorney's Office
IT NO.
M DESCRIPTION: Request approval of the Access Agreement with the Minnesota Department of
PREPARED BY:
Public Safety for computerized criminal history access in the city attorney's office.
avid M. Gosslee
A necessary tool in prosecuting criminal cases is access to the Minnesota Criminal Data
Communication Network. This is the manner in which FBI and BCA criminal history information is made
available to local agencies. The State requires that the City execute a formal Access Agreement that
details the obligations and requirements placed on the city attorney's office in order to be connected to this
network. The agreement is necessary for the attorney's office both to request information and to receive
the information that was requested by the police department. There is no license fee or other charge for
access to this information.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the same.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:_to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 9/
AGENDA SECT11
Consent
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Rochester International Airport
cM DESCRIPTION: Amend the Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc. to
include an update to the PFC application for the Rochester International Airport.
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
Steven W. Legve
Amend the Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc. to include an update to Rochester International
Airport's PFC application. The current PFC application needs to be updated to show recently completed
projects in order to continue to collect PFC's at the Rochester International Airport. The Professional Services
Agreement with ACSG, Inc. will be increased by $8,500.00
Funding: 100% PFC reimbursable
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the amendment with ACSG, Inc.
OUNCILACTION: Motion by: second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Consent
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Rochester International Airport
°M DESCRIPTION: Lease agreement with Rochester-Ohnsted County Joint Civil Defense
Commission.
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
MEETING S
DATE: 9/18/06
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
Steven W. Legve
Renew the lease agreement with Rochester -Olmsted County Joint Civil Defense Commission to lease the
former offices of the National Weather Service at the Rochester International Airport. It is a two year
agreement with first year quarterly payments of $5,000.00 per quarter and second year quarterly payments of
$5,857.75 per quarter.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor, the City Clerk and the Rochester Airport Company to execute the Lease Agreement.
:OUNCILACTION: Motion by second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 14� I
DATE: 9/18/06
Consent
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Rochester International Airport
W DESCRIPTION: Bid award to Road Constructors for the extension of Airport View I PREPARED BY:
Drive SW. Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Award the bid to Road Constructors, Inc. to construct roadway and utilities that will extend Airport View Drive
SW. This extension will allow for additional development. Bid tabs attached. (6966)
Funding: Airport Future Construction Accounts
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to award the bid to Road Constructors, Inc.
:OUNCILACTION: Motion by: second by,
I�
RECAP OF BIDS
2006 EXTENSION OF AIRPORT VIEW DRIVE
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $718,480.00
ROAD CONSTRUCTORS $599,999.90
A-1 EXCAVATING $629,481.50
ROCHESTER SAND & GRAVEL $669,653.14
SCHUMACHER EXCAVATING $670,414.65
RYAN CONTRACTING $704,995.3B
GRIFFIN CONSTRUCTION $694,431.55
HODGEMAN DRAINAGE $724,979.25
WINONA MECHANICAL $754,977.13
SL CONTRACTING $773.042.00
DIRT PRO $800,800.35
G Z
Z O
0
N
op
N
N
o
N
M
0
N
00
M
N
0
O
N
0
N
N
0
M
0
try
M
0
0
0
0
m
a
o
N
0
N
0
0
N
0
0
p
N
N
o
0
N
N
0
0
N
o
N
N
e
N
M
o
0
N
o �
0
N
¢
W W
Q K
a
0
O
y
0
m
N
0
O
0
H
N
o
0
Y
0
Y
P
0
O
O
h
0
w
N
0
N
N
0
N
0
iV
N
0
0
N
0
O
N
0
Y
N
0
0
O
O
N
0
0
O
O
0
�o
N
0
m
(V
N
0
0
O
O
0
m
m
0
O
Y
0
O
O
a
0
N
0
N
N
0
N
N
o
m
NN
p
P
NN
r
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
p
0
P
o
o
a
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
o g
0
m
❑F r
❑ Z
0
¢O
N
o
P
N
c
N
H
O
N
m<
M
d
N
c
N
N
d
c
N
N
o
M
0
y
0
N
o
H
c
M
c n
H
N
N
Z
O W
00
O
p
O
o
N
m
p
o
p
0
O
o
m
n
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
N
n
0
o
U U
c
•-
w
w
°p
�
v
P
w
w
H
w
w
w
w
U a
wr
w
0 0
o O
0
O
0
o
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
o
0
O
0
O
0
o
0 0
N P
C
O N
O
N
N
m
O
O
P
OO
O
m
O
O
OO
m
m
N
Y
N
w
P
O
m
m
m
m
m
m
0
O
n m
N Y
N w
16
O O
p 0
N
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
IA
O
O
O
O
O O
n N
H
o
H»
o
NN
o
w
a
H
m
NH
w»
o
H
w NN
w
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0
p o 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 o m o o p
N O O O O� p G O O N 0 0 OO OO O OO O O O O O 0' OO O m O 10 O N
N O N m O O 00 O m w O O O N m O O P N O N O b N
n vi m y - a te N 69 N m r n •' '^ v N N �+
m z
m F �
W ¢
W �
Z
0 o O
O o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N 0 0
U_ N N P P O H N m H M yOj Op N N A N N P N N � H N
R M N
r N
2
Z O O> Y Y p Q b li LC Y LL LL
R' r U 0 U r r J J m J J m N J J J m W U W¢ J r J J
N m b 9 10'1 P m m P m N N
w O m
N
Y W
r j
� r
O
y m j j U H
m ¢ 0 zd
n W
a� w w p
Z W C r U 0
O r
4 LL mLLI
< S Z
S JO u m m� rc w
w w 'D ¢ F U y
z r w 0
z z r y6 z 0 r °� ¢ wi ❑W w m h m w
O 0 0 0 m 0 O 0 K a a LL Z0 r zi S OJ p ❑ m m K ¢ m
IL w a ¢ U� J m 0 m p W 0 ZO 0 o a F y Z Z W
¢ r U
6 m W C7 a�u O K U U Z¢ K Z U 2' U U U O U 00 ~O U N b
LL ¢ O j F W 5 Z I U 6¢ U U W i r V U C U O❑ S Z a s
O O O w w m X 0>> O U z z r O O V W u¢ c w 0> r n a
Z Z F F p vd ¢ O 0 U❑ m U U] z W LL m and O x x ¢ r r
O p g Z� (N} z z_ LL ti u'i > > S" O °� O �n d z a,
N F m m O O U L� O N 'n r W y W LL m r❑❑❑ W Ly io m
❑ z z r O ❑ 4¢ w w w r S
W W ❑ a U m m OU m m N m K O W Z LL LL r U m m m y LL LL
O
4 W W
Q U W N N N n N N N N N �IOI N N N i0(1 p V01 .011 h N 1N N r
O
W p O w 0 o o e e o o Y0 0 0 `n m N r r Q o_ o
w N K ~ Z N N N N h N N N N N N N N N N N Ci N n N N N N N N m N
8
[D Z
F O
>�a
a
K
W W
U
z
a
r
z
0 0 0 0 0 0 e
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o a o vi c o ao
N y N NN N N N
m
N
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0� 0
b 10p O N N
N Nw NN H
NH
o 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 o e
0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o c o 0 o ry c c o c o e ui ai
O Y �- P w Nw N NN Q N
N
0 0 0 0 o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 o N 0
of c c ui o 0 o a o o ri �
N 17 w 1` 0 0 0 0 ON N
M N y p N � m N HYN H
w N in
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ri c m e o c u: o c o
N N N N N M H
o 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
�ri .ri u e d 6 vi o c o
O O w N O
N N H M H M M N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 e
0 w
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 00 0 00
0N 00 00
0 0 0 0 0
(NwY GwN OOwO�
GwNw
NO OO OO O C OY G G OH NN �!
O
AO0 O0Vi O
NR'
O
NO
N
N
N
�o
O W
o 0 0 0 0 o
m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ri o c c ui c o o c a
0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0
o o ni � g d� 00 N N
QU U
N 6 V O O M
N w
Ni
M N GNi n N H O M N N N H N
w N
N N N N N N N H N N
Q a
O r
2
H N
n
N N N H W M
Z
z
o c o 0 0 o e
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 e
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0
0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0
O G C O O OO N
Q N' p 0 0 0 O O O Oo O� N N
N N O N O O N
N P�pp
o
N
Z
W �
N M N N
O
wa
Z
O O
N
w
oaao
o
0 0 0 0 0 N o 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
m d o o a vi iu
w w
U
m � o o N w
ry v c c c v c o c o o ai
�
LL
N
N N N rI
N H N H N
r
N
N H N N
Z
7
UG
Z
[[ll
a a a LL O
LL !/� (J�
J W W W W VI O
J J J W N N W¢ J J
J Q a S W
N.
0 A!.
Y
r
N
O
y
W
w J
>
O O
p
2 as o
z3
o
wrco
gr
zmr
w
O J
VN Ub
O
wK
O O z
me
m
a
i y W
Z Z b �' �" m F z z
0 f F❑ o
U w F w
m'
ULL'
U
W W r W
z Oaa
wy[- ¢
Cw� cw7 w
a a a a w w N wJ
H
>� >j
t �j
J
J
(�d'�
N Q>
ZZ a Iu
Q Q
N N R 6
_
O
Z
O
0 6 H
Q Q F- O O t/�
�i 3 rc <>
l�/1 tail J
a O 4 6
z?
Z Z
V r m
za
F F F ❑<
x r On za �i
m �'+ b m z r N N
�'i �wi �i w J
y p
n
rc 1O O r
r x w wi rc
5 o c9 caj x r w
a r_ N N K wq
y
O O O O 0 0 z
p
¢
w
m O O
_
in m m io io 3 m>> i 'v C7 r
i z r .'
m N R'
w
z z
0 m 0
z
rc¢ Q z z
Z W
LL
w
O b O❑ w b 0
a m LL r
b m m b b m m b 4
LL IL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
z¢ w
N w
W r
O
U LL U
Z
O O�-
N
O r Vi
a Q O Q Q
N iD P P
N
a x W
W=
N P
O n h
0 N 0 0 0
N N
K N N N N N N N N N
uNi N YNi N N N N N h
a
U U
N N N N h
d o o d d
w O O O O O O O O OO O O O
r o o � a'l c 0 0 0 0 0 � 0�`11 0 0 o
N c
R
0 O O OO
O 0 0 0 0 0
� p0 o O O 6O 0co
3 In 41 UJ
uj
W
n
Ts $ n
N N N N w f y N
W N K
Z to . Ul N N
o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 o D o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o b o 0 0 o D o 0 o m
OO O O (J IV G O O lV N G N O M O O G G O O P
m b O f N O N N l7 A N O P A O O O O N Ob O
Vr Z N N N g N N N N N m N N N N M N m N S
Z 0 H N N e9 H
F O
>�a
o o D o 0 0 0 0 0 o a N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o D o 0 p 0 0 0
W w 0 N o n eo 0 0 o ri vi e ry c m o o c o o '
O N N O N N N l7 b P P b O O O O f N
N N N N N N N
a
ti o�
iV OO
l'I
o
D
0
C
o
O
u n
M
0
0
u0i o
N
N
H
N
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
m
0
O
0
O
0
N
0
O
o
P
N
0
O
0
P
0
O
D
n
O o
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
o
O
m
O
oO
o
O
e
O
O
O
o
O
0
O
0
m
y
O
n
N
lV
Y
IA
d
n
b
0
O
0
Q
0
m
m
m
m
d
N
N
N
C
W
N
OO
b
m
N
OO
O
OO
O
m
O
H
N
O
O
OO
N
N
OO
b
P
O
n
OO
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
R
m'
m
a'
O
'
N
H
r
O
b
Q
N
l7
N
e
r
H
d
N
Cf
N
IV
1'1
N
O
O
IV
Oi
H
N
m
N
m
m
m
UZ
N
N
y
OI
N
C!
N
N
Nw
N
H
N
y
NN
H�
NN
N
M
N
N
�
OM
V!
Z
O W
o
p
0
O
0
O
0
N
0
N
0
O
0
N
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
b
0
O
0
n
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
o
O
O
O
p
N
U U
N
N
fV
n
OI
C
N
OO
N
N
O
ID
r'
N
N
IN
N
Ol
N
O
O
N
Q
O
N
A
m
r
O
(7
O
G
O
N
O
m
O
N
r
H
S a
N�
ON
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
mN
w
0H
N
N
N
N
e^
N�
O F
w
w
N
w
N
Z
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
p
o
p
p
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
p
p
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
e
p
o
0
o
0
b
0
o
0
0
o
D
D
o
d
N
c
m
d
N
N
c
o
c
o
�c
c
o
c
6
c
o
u
of
r
c O
u n
c
0
c
p
c
g
o
m
`w
`w
w
N
NN
H
H
N
y
w
w
N
w
M
Nw
M
M
N
w
N
N
w
b Z
W
N
N
K r 0
<
W
Z �
O �
h
WW w
p
0
o0
0
0
0
o
0
D
p
0
o
0
0
o
0
p
0
o
0
o
0
p
0
o
0
0
D
0
o
p
D
a
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
o
0
0
U
m
uOl
O
N
M
ypj
�
ypj
pp
lV
G
10
O
m
O
O
O
O
C
CI
�
N
m
P
�
N
mN
N
w
N
N�
N
w
NN
M
H
a7
r
10
P
w
y
a
N
N
N
N
F
y
N
N
LL Q
Q
LL
LL
Q
LL
Q
LL
Q
LL Q
{L
Q
H
O
LL
Q
LL LL
J
N
y
O
K
�
Z
S
a
C❑
Q
¢
¢
F-
r
r
y
m
❑
C7
N
Z
Z
Z
U
U
U
U
J
❑
Z
d
Q U
J
Y
(7
>
O
O
O
W
�y
b
�/]
41
V]
6
f
K
O
K
J❑
r
Z
O
a
U
U¢¢
O
o
a
ZQ
❑
m
z
❑
w
Z%
N
W
2
a
U
a
U
S
a
0
a
0
a
0
a
U
a
U
a
U
a
U
U
U
U
S]
Q
n
K
WLL
W
N
y
i
c2j F
m O
ni O
6
J
C
C
a
C
6
C
R
C
K
K
C
K
6
K
C[
J
N
U
m
O
y
Z
Z
2
b Q
m
Z W
�=
U
U
U
V
:J
h
LL
LL
F
LL
LL F
W F
O toN
❑
(dV
lL
H
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
N
LL
N
LL
N
LL
N
LL
N
t❑1
LL
tD
C
V
❑Y
a W W
a =
„
O
ID
m
fO
10
10
10
am^
[O
N
P
b
N
N
a
�
N
N
N
N
Vi
U o U
cC
0
N
Op
N
G
N
G
Ml
O
h
0
N
O
ubi
Op
Yi
O
N
O
o
N
C
o
G
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
Op
a
�(QI
O
0
pa
d
m
o
O
0
F
J
O
o
W p 0
w 0
0
0
0
0
a
p
>
F
ti� aoa seessssss o os esssssssssse se
N
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
M
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
N
O
O
O
N
N
m
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
m
m
N
m
H
2I
N
lV
A
m
O
m
N
0
N
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
N
y
N
N
N
(p
b
D
LL.
N
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
Y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
N
m
O
Y
N
N
N
O
Y
p
N
N
N
N
H
N
H
O
O
N
N
O
M
Q
m
N
N
O
N
N
D U
N
N
N
N
N
m
O
N
m
N
H
N
N
N
LL
N
N
f
Z
0
0
o
g
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
0
0
ui
N
c
o
o
o
vi
vi
N
o
o
o
0
0
o
o.
r
c
M
o
o
a
m
o
0
c
o
o
N
o
0
c
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
N
o
o
N
N
N
m
e
o
D
2Z
N
Y
Y
d
N
M
M
N
M
m
y
N
N
N
N
N
m
M
FD
Y
rc r
o
o
0
o
o
O
M
m
o
N
o
o
p
0
0
o
p
p
0
0
p
0
p
0
O
0
0
0
p
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
p
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
p
N
p
0
z W
D U
G
O
ry
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
U K
N
H
M
N
N
P
N
Q
N
O
W
H
y
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
N
H
O
O
A
N
r
N
O
NN
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
�
H
N
1MO
N
N
N
_
Z
p
0
o
0
0
o
0
p
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
d
NN
oo
00
00
00
00
0
0
D
o
c
m
d
d
o
0
0
0
o
0
o
c
o
0
0
0
o
c
o
N
c
c
r
o
v
A
N
m Z O
N
U < 5
a � d
a
U
o
O
p
O
m
n
N
N
A
o
O
0
N
o
O
M
r
p
O
N
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
0
o
O
p
O
o
A
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
m
N
0
O
0
O
0
O
= X W
U Uf U
O
O
r
N
fJ
N
G
N
YI
P
Yf
d
G
O
I�
H
fV
N
Nl
N
Nl
H
IO
y
O
N
Q
N
O
N
O
N
H
N
H
O
O
Y
G
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
M
a
F
H
Z_
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
b
A
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
OO
O
OO
m
N
Q
O
O
N
O
O
m
0
N
m
0
Y
0
m
0
p
C
O
IG
G
O
N
M
OO
O
OO
O
O
N
O
O
N
N
OI
O
M
m
m
O
0
n
W
0
H
Q
N
p
M
n
N
d
N
N
N
b
M
N
N
w
N
N
N
M
H O
W
Z N
U❑
O
O
N
N
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
m
N
U $ W
O
N
O
A
A
N
N
O
m
N
O
m
N
m
Ow
m
W
O
N
O
O
O
lV
m
N
� Q U
N
H
N
N
N
H
N
N
N
N
N
H
N
m
O
M
N
N
dN
O
N
N
N
O
N
NN
N
a
z
N
N
Y
F
W
�
O
F
y
UZ
N
111
¢
U
d>
a
6w.
Iw-
a
Z
w
LL
J
W
D
w
r
D
U
Z
¢
Ox
m
z
W
w
s
w
Y
r¢
i
r
s
O
w
w
O
U
YZ
U
V
F
C
,a,
h
W
Z
zD
O
¢
>>¢
0
IL
O
¢
U
m
u
a>n
F?
m
Z
o
p
O
5
� rcu
w
zd
°°
u
m
n
w
�"
z
z
w
E
Q?
z
i'
H
MW
S
a¢
m
w
0
0
w
w
z
w
w
Z
V
O
V
2
z
0
O
I
r
r
0
vwi
h
w
W
m
J
W
oK
u
U
w
D
D
D
F
D
O
LL
¢
O
x
F
x
z
F
V¢¢
V
U
U
W
z
r
V
U¢
U
J❑❑
x
z
a
s
O
1
U
N
W
to
N
o
1-
d
2
Fes-
O
O
r
W
O
Y
Z
Z
Y
6
F
7
Z
Z
U❑
h
6
F
w
w
a
❑O
o
U
0
z
z
m
V
U
V¢
w
LL
N
O
x_
x¢
Z Z
V!
a
F
o
r
r_
m
a
¢_¢
V
r
❑
x
w
J
O
NQ�
a
z
er..
J
O
m
O
NN
"
N
O
O
�S��$JJ
WS�$JJ
O
N
N
l
Yw
Z W
O
W
W
a
s
W
O
O
�'
d
a
e0
W
-+
J
W�
W
p
Y
O
0 F
0
2
N
N
O
LL
U
f0
f0
1-
U
R'
M1'
N
N
LL'
U
H
W
W
2
�.
LL
H
U
w
0
N
X yLLJ
0
b
o
ry
Y q
m
W
M'
='
W
O
C
N
upi
O
vOi
b
YOl
N
N
p
W 0 O
W O
O
O
m
m
m
O
O
O
O
O
fl
p
O
W
n
n
Z¢ O
O
N
(V N
Y' $
9-1
1,cN'
J
0
w
S
H
cc
0
Q.
Q.
rc
a
0
0 m
m ZK
w
LLI
O X to
w °J
O
w c O
K N K
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 o e
o N o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 o b
m �e o 0 o c c a o a o o ui ei
w o 0 o m o p o N o N n b
m N N m N N C y M wN y w N
b
N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ry N o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0
Y1 g G C G Vl O OO O n O 1(I N
N N N N O N O O N O N N
H H pH mH p N Q N H N
N N
N H N
o a o 00 0 0 o a o 0 0 0� o
b p O O p O O O O O O N
Oj p O G G m O O O OO O 0 IV O
d p p p O p O N N p p
N N N
N y& H H N N N N N O
N
o N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p O O O g O O O O O O N
IN N Vl N V O O O O O 1� 17
N N N m d w O p N N H
H H mH o N n nH mH nw H
n ri
M N N N
0
0
o
0
a
0
o
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
o
0
a
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
o e
0
o
r
o
a o
m
�
a
o
r
a
O
op
o
N
0
o
N
ry
N
n m
N N
q
q
N
N
m
N
O
Q
p
F O
o
0
o
a
o 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
b
0
x X W
U W U
c
O
N
o
D
0
O
0
q
�d
N
eri
N
p
N
o
O
ui
N
tl
O
oo
c
O
o
O
o
O
vi
w
a
w
z
rc
v
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
o
O
a
O
a
O
o
N
0
O
0
O
0
O
o
d O
ry o
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
o
O
d
O p
o b
ei
g
o
p
0
H
0
0
0
N
�c
N
N
od
N
m<
m
N
N
d
N
N
N
d
H
H
v
N
d
a
c
N
vi ao
M
N
0
0
0
00
O
o
O
a
N
O
o
O
0
O
0
m O
0
O
0
O
0
00
O
0
O
O
0
N
pv
M
N
N
N
N
w
m
w
N
w
N
w
O
O
N
N
N
i(di N Jni N N yOj
o a o 0 o a
tq N N w m n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m m 1'1 N N N Y01 O m b q
O
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N fV N N N N N N fV N
N N N t0 N N N N
M N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O
N N
0 o a o a o 0 0 o a
N N N O O G OO C< V
w w N w H
O O O O O O O O O O
O OO OO C O O O O N O
H N M N N w N N N N
N
0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0
0 o c o o c c c re �d
y g M O N N N C N N
H N M N N
0 o a o 0 o a o a o
ui o a o a c c c o d
g q w N K N N O q N
H
0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 o a a o 0 0 0
w N w a a d a
N K H M N N p
a
°
>yy
>
g
p
z
JWjJ
>
a
U
U
(aJ
U
m
W
LL a
>
W
A�
m
Z
O
$
Z
m
y
U
LL
N
N
G
Q
Z
a
s
mW
.ue
F
O
m
F
z
U
2
wU'
W
W
R
R
m
(wL
>>>>
fW9
U
U
X
0 0
W
f
Z
a
Z
W
d>
a
L
X
U
O
i
W
W
W
F
W
o
o
o
z
m
a
m
Q
o
O
.a
adw
O
yyy����
w
w
w
w
w
w
S
O
Z z
Z LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
Q
Q
U
LL
LL
F
�
LL'
K
K
K
R'
K
-
Q
O
m
O
Q
d
d
N
R
N
N
H
�
N
N
m
O
W
N N
N
N
Ypf
vni
Yni
N
I
$
$
n
m
V!
N
(n
N
VJ
m
N
w
m w
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m O O O b
r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O N O O O m
IC N OO iV N O P O Y OO m N O O O O O OO OO O m O m p G O
17 H N m O N O N b O N b O^ O O O O N O O P O N
O O Cl a O N b P O W a O Ol m P
M
2 F O N
w
LL O
LL �
W o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o o p o 0 0 0 o N o 0 0
o
N N N P N YI N N N N! N N O O O G N O N y
U
W N N N N N N
a
ti
z
0 0 0 0 0 0 N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o D o e n
0 0 0 m m o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o 0 o D o e
lV O N N I� O O O m P G P O O N O O G O O O YI OO b O O O b
N N N p
F p
N
0 0 o m o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z w 0 0 o b b o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o p IN o
o P o b
O U P O N N Ol N b G m d m O O H O O N G 6
mw W OO M1 W
m N N N M m H N W N 10 O N m m I` O O f� N w H m N w
U a N w
Z
7
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a O n O O O iy
O O O O O O O O O O O O O b O O O O O O W b O O O O m
dq VI pO lV O N G 0 1!! O
P N m O O R O Om m O b O O O O O O W m O m O bO O
N a N m :Q
[J O b m P N y m Q
W Ur ?
2Z0 w
U Q
a i Q
Q o 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 o a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 o b o 0
2 X W tG b OO N (V O t7 O I� W O O m O 00 OO O O W m O 10 n
U W U N N N N O N O N N O t�l O P b O N m N N O N N
n N w N N N H
Z
O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O O b H O b O O O P
O O a tl W OO O Y IJ IOO fV N c in O OO G OO H n1 OO ✓I OO OO O r'j'
b O O A
m
J F w N N m w Gf N N m m IV O r P 0& N n N b pj
1,1 -Z N N M N N N Nw N N N w p w N N N N N w N M b
F � Q W U
i m 0 O o 0 0 o 0 o p e 0 0 0 0 N 0
U O 0 0 o n m o m 0 m 0 m o b o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O Z w o a d N ri vi vi o m o m n N �d c o vi r d �n r
n H H N H g H N
F
Z
J
N
O
n
Z
❑ OLU
a io o m
S U N fISy� (yS� 2 d d 6 a wa 4 u❑0 W
F d¢ 6 Q a F F F F W J N
m ry 0 f �_ H C K K K Q U U] 0
ILN❑% > 1 1 d li
O W > Z U U U U= ❑ O Y U
a O J y 0
0 a Q U 1 6Q ¢� N V! N m Q f C O 6 S❑ f
w C7 (� a 1- F- H F m K O !0 Z W I J O
n a a a a a a a a a O O U v O LL
11) Oa 0
_ J W a K K d 6 a K C ❑a" C Ua' K K F K aF=' j f~q W J t=Il O
JJ JJ _ J u U J N-
Z Z Z
Z O
X ❑ LL' LL LL f' N LL LL LL LL m U U U U 0 F LL LL F U LL LL F m
y N N f N MI N b N N N N N tQ t!9 '1 O Z p 0 m
Q W n O m b m m 0 m b O N O 1O O N N Q a b O
W � N a V N uai vai vai a vai N K N P Y�
b Jv N N VI �n N JI 4i b v� N N b H N
(.I o o o 0 0 00 o c c o0 00 0 0 o a o0 00 o o J a o
W p O w p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > F
K N K t Z N 41 N w w W N N w N w V1 (n t/I N fA ✓! N N en N Vi W J N N
9
0 0 0 0 a 0 p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o W
o
o 0 00 0 0 0
O O O o O
0 0 a 0 0 e
O O O o O
o p
O O N p N o O O o O O O O O O
a n o �i o 0 0 o ui vi c o 0 o e
c o c c 0 o
ui �ri o g
c 6
Oo M
m N m N y d
Y V N N N N
O O
K 0 a
o
N N 0 N 0 N 0 0 N
0
O
0 0 0 m
O p O
0O 0 am 0 0 0
O O O O
0 0 0 0 0
O O m N O
O O
U
��pp
p N V N N O y N N H
M
N
H O N M
N
Ln
O O y N N.
O N N
p
O A N N N
H
N N
H N
K
N N N
N H M
N
N N
d
N
Y
y
b H
A
H
Z
J
0 0
0 o p
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0 p o o e
0 0 a o o
0 0 0 0 0 0
a 0 p O o 0
0 0 0 0 0 e
0 0 0 0 0 e
o e
o 0
0 0
c c
o c
c c vi c o r n
�i
c c o o u
m 0 0 0
c c o o c o
a o 0 0 0 0
c o o c
o N Y n p 0
0 0
N
0 F-
ry o
b N N
o M1 0 0 0 H
m F m N O m WN
W
W
b
H y NN 0 0
O b N m A N
N P N m m m
N
N
y
H
H
p y N y
M H N
H N
1' J
Q
N N
y N N N y
f0r1
N
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
o W 0 0
0 0
2
ow
0 0 o
OId N
N 0 0 o p o 0
66 K
0
W
0 p o
G
N M
O O N O O
N K O m
O O O O
O A N N O
O N
N N
U
yj
N W
M N V<
y N N O H
K
N
O N
O N H
N N N
J LL
tl) LL
H
V
N
y
y
F
2
J
o
N
o p o 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 o a o o
N m
a o
m O
0 0 0 0
m N (J C f Y N
M
OO O G MJ
m
m T O O W m
m F O (V OO 1'1
A P
Z
J
¢ O
H N O
H w
H N P F N
N H y N
N
y N
w
N N
N M
N N
¢ V S¢
z
O�
5
1� lV m
9 1n Y m
ry
C G m
m P fV W O
Y N O O
A
20
N N N
y
N
y N N
a
m y y
N N
W
N
^y
a
2
z
J
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o p 0 p W
o a o 0 0 0
0 a 0 0 0 0
ry c o w
00 0
o rri
0 o
ui a c N o 0 0
o c o c e
g o ry p c c e
o ui
z
W Q
N N N
y N M N N
N
M
y y N N
H N N M
M N
¢
W
� a
O O O O
O O O
o O m N O
O N Ol O
OO N OO N
O O
O O
N
O
[V 1� (J
O m OO OI N
n
m O Vy
�9 N y
O N O N
D O W H O
O O H y N
N
I Q U
ry N N
N N y W y N N
N
N
Fr
H
m
w
Z
J
b
y W
f j
J H
WW
C
W
p
W
J
O
n < f
W
v1
O
C'
m
W
❑
U
c m
rc
O¢
O
K
Ot AA
W
j
O
r
m zz
O
U
W
n .� E y¢
d
W z a W O
U Y V
ZOZ
S
O
a m K K J
W¢> F
w
6 z
r
m O
0N_
tll
Z
O
1- K
U
z0
O
m rc
Q
O m J J m
O O j
a
F
n¢ m
N a O W H
d t
O m m
W
1� fit!
IL
Q F W
U
IIYY
F I!
J
U
0¢ H
W a
Z Z N
K y
CCW Q¢m
U
SO
m
H H U
Y
N
OF
w w
O U
li
U
z 2 K ZO O
00 R
F O O Q U O O Z
W W
¢
J W J
Li
2 U
OZO
y OU N
XW 0 z r u
a-
z z W
O Y 2 Z Z d
W J Z
2 a
z
m m
O O?
w p J
U w(5�
O
Wp p Wp
F Q J n 0 U Z
Z
m
W R'
O O X X
FJJ fJJ
(IJ 0
=
p
U¢¢
W- z_ Z U_ R>>
O= y
R
❑
m
(J an d `2 LL N O
O
{{SS�� O N Q
Z y
b F W y W R b
m Z d'
m m
¢ O w
<¢ w 0 0
s pd n m m w
a J w w w 0
w+ m
W
VI U'
m
LL U m m F U R'
R'
m N w U F
W W 2 LL LL F U� UJ N m F f
y LL LL
LLJ F~
U
ZO 0
tl
ry
O
q X W
W=
Z
N N
Q
W yOj ufi �[Ni
N N N vOi N Jpl N
N
N N N
N N N h N N
A
f_ �
O O
Ci o U
W O
H
O
W Q
� o
O OO
n m N W n o
P
0
Y P
p o fo �
4 p m m n n
N N
v
m
Q
H
N
N N N N N N
N
N N N N
IJ N M n
0
N ry N
m N
I N K
$
H N ry
n
3r
yW
W
5
K
O
a
z
a
0
Q 22
m ZQ
W
O
o W W
UCo o U
of Ns
0
0
0
0
m
o
m
p
O
0
p
0m
0m
oN
0O
o
0
o
p
o
0
0
o
0
po m
'
Z
O O
C
a
v
N
N
o
O
N
o
O
N
H
c
H
c
O
N
o
m
N
N
1�
m
M
a
Y
N
d
N
m A
N
o
f
!
N
o
b
M
c
N
N
ri
N
c
N
H
o
m
N
O
H
i
A
N
o
v1
H
o
N
N
ki
A N
H N
D U
K
ti
vi
M
N
N
c
m
N
e
1n
m
o
O
YN
ui
h
a+
M
m
N
N
o
N
N
o.
A
NN
0
mN
N
m
N
o
b
P
N
N
c
O
N
.
A
N
o
N
H
N
.
O O O O O O fU
OO IV N Y m N Y!
z Q A O^ m
N N
¢ U Sd
Z ZZ
O a o o 0 0 o m
S2S Z p p o 0 Y
U
� uri
0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m
0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c m o c c m o o c c o e o r
'� n n S m a ry a a m enn n e
Cq
N 1ND N N N N N N N N N P ry
N N N M
0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 o p
0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c ri o 0 o d a c o c c vi o
tl! Cj N M N N
p p N N
p b O O O O p0 O O O p O m O
ry b O O O N O C O O 10 n N
H IPC N N N H N N N N N M� N
H N N
O b O O O O O O O O N
m p o o o 0 0 0 o m Y
H N Y Y N N Q S N14 O N H
f N fY tf N N N N
w N N N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
p
o
0
0
0
0
o
p
o
0
0
o
p
0
0 0
0
o
e
o
0
o
m
m
ri
c
c
o
�u
c
o
c
d
o
a
d E
0
om
o
m
p
o
n
O
o
Q
0
O
0
N
o
m
m
O
y
o
N
0
P
0
m
o
N
N
N
m
m
N
N
O
N
N
P
N
O
Y
N
O
N
17
0
Z
Z
N
O
Oi
OJ
N
W 2
(7 a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
op
o
o
p
op
p
o0
O
O Q
o
O
0
N
0
O
o
O
p
b
o
m
o
m
b
m
o
O
o
O
p
O
o
1'I
OO
0
G
0
O
0
O
O
0
N
m
U
O
A
O
N
H
N
t7
O
O
O
N
N
N
O
O
O
N
N
NN
N
N
LL
w
w
w
w
w
w
J
O_
T
M
j
¢
Z
U
hb
p
a~
H
W
W
e
x
m
LL
b
p
JO
x
z
y
w
w„
z
U
N
m
O
w
ZZ
V
z
h
O
y
Z~Z
y
O
ii
K
h
J
Y
Q
m
b
LL
h
p�
w
C
N
o
F'
.1
K
w
f
Z
w
u
b
LL
m4
N
O
Z
w
a¢
o
m
LL_
b
O
cO
m
N
C7
w
LL
0
0
h
O
c O
m
b
>
O
m
LL
0
m
O
O
�d
x¢
.�
LL
0
b
O
O
Z
F
LL
z
a
w
LL
b
OO
O
Wb
>
a)
2
FLa>
°dr-
m
LL
m
m
0
O
N
w
y
Z
x
m
LL
0
10
N
0
O
yl
>�
y
S
P
ul
0
>
(7
H
S
Q
N
0
O
z
F¢
¢
U
Z
N
0
w
O
U
N
0
j
z
W
W
a¢
LL
Q
Yl
0�
O
LL
Y
Q Q
JQ
m o
LL f
P
g
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
p
0
o
o
o
p n
S o
n
o
0
0
0
0
0
aa0
a
N
M
0 0 0 0 c o 0 o a o
c o vi o c o c o ui ui
N N N N P N S O N M
H N N N H
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w m n 0� g u0i c o N
N M M N N H N -
M N
oo00se00oo
c c o 0 0 o c c vi ui
N H H H N H N M N N
n O N O O O O O Y O
m O O+ O A m P P [J
O N m t0'1 N O N< P Oi
N N N
N N N O O O O O N m
H N N M N N N N N N
o D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H
O o O O O O O O O O
is a o d o o d d
N N N N N N n N N H
H N M H H
�l
U)
WN
0
LU
W
Ir
H
0
0
0-
0
a
Z
C O
m ZLUQ
W
O X co
p W W_
U c V
woO
K NR'
2
J
¢O
6
~
❑ U
aH
r
p
0
o
ip
N
O
O
O
N
p
o
a
H
O
O
O
b
NH
o
p
c
O
y
O
O
O
O
AH
0
p
N
b
M
N
C
N
y
0
o
n
p
0
y
O
b
N
N
0
o
c
O
N
O
O
OO
d
N
n
m
�-
N
M
H
0
o
o
O
H
O
O
O
d
w
0
o
d
PI
N
n
d
Ol
N
o
a
vi
0
Of
H
O
O
A
N
N
p
o
o
0
N
O
O
O
O
N
H
o
m
n
b
N
O
b
n
a
H
0
e
o
N
O
O
0'
N
H
o
o
m
M
O
O
fC
N
p o
p o
o
P m
Cl
H N
O O
O O
N O
d b
n ry
N M
0
0
0
O
m
N
O
O
N
n
N
N
0
0
0
H
F
N
O
O
b
N
A
H
o
0
0
vi
N
O
O
N
0
O
N
p
o
0
O
r
N
O
O
m
H
N
N
e
m
N
N
N
IU
l7
y
O
N
d
H
o
o
o
O
H
O
O
O
O
Ny
e
m
w
m
N
N
o
o
o
N
d
N
N
N
n
M
o
o
o
O`
N
O
O
m
y
e
e
e
b
M
b m
y y^
o
O
0
e
N
2
J
0
o
p
o
0
o
p
o
o
p
p
o
0
0
0
o
p
p
p
e
o
o
e
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
p
p
o
0
0
0
o
p
p
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
e
p
o
o
D
o
e
e
c
o
o
m
c
o
N
o
c
o
c
a
o
o
c
o
c
c
o
o
�e
ui
o
u
c
o
o
N
O
O
A
l7
R
ID
F
ID
ry
m
N
❑
H
N
N
N
N
N
fl
N
H
H
N
�
N
N
m
N
N
N
M
N
N
A
Uc U
N
H
q
w
N
N
g
N
M
H
M
M
Q 9
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
p
o
o
p
p
p
p
o
0
o
p
p
p
o
0
0
0
Z
p
o
p
p
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
p
o
o
p
o
0
0
0
0
o
p
o
p
O
vi
c
c
e6
o
c
N
o
ui
c
o
c
o
c
e
o
0
0
0
of
c
o
0
y�
w
-
w
M
W
N
N
N d
N
N
N
N
_f
Z
J
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
n
p
o
b
o
o
a
A
p
m
o
0
o
p
p
O
p
o
o
m
D
o
e
W
Ol
n
Y
O
O
(V
I
OO
b
N
P
N
O
N
O
O
m
m
0'
O
O
O
O
O
A
n
N
n
N
1-
Z
N
N
0
OO
w
ON
-
q
fV
m
0
Cl
A
q
n
P
fO
a'
J
N
M
K
M
H
N
q
N
N
N
N
N
m
m
N
N
N
N
G U
QU
N
N
M
w
M
N
N
A
y
Z Z
U a
O
O
O
VI
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
b
O
O
N
N
m
m
0
} W W
w
nN
Aq
MI
N
N
w�
O
N
N�
O
H
N
m
N
P
N
b@
A
w
H
n
O
b
O
N
O
0
Ol
M
q
fD
N
M
M
cG (1
C!
!V
rc
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
p
o
o
o
o
p
p
o
p
o
o
p
o
p
p
o
o
o
o
p
p
p
p
o
O
0
p
o
o
O
0
p
0
p
o
o
p
0
p
o
o
o
D
p
o
o
e
D
o
o
0
e
o
m
N
o
ro
c
b
o
o
m
cc
o
o
m
m
vi
n
N
n
w
n
o
o
0
ry
0
o
1")
o
b
N_
c
o
o
0
c
o
o
N
o
p
6
c
om
of
ui
n
o
o
Lu
n
o
o
0
o
o
p
ai
F
�
N
N
o
0
p
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
p
o
p
o
o
p
0
o
p
O
o
p
p
o
o
p
0
o
0
0
0
o
o
p
a
o
o
p
p
o
N
N
d
N
N
c
b
N
ro
N
cw
vi
N
c
N
N
ri
N
ri
N
o
o
N
c
c
N
o
m_
c
o
fY
0
o
iu
A�
NN
vi
n
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
U
U
a
a
a
a
a
w
a
w
a
❑
i
S
2}})}
F
r
r
F
S
w
J
N
H
F
K
K
K
C
Q
U
U
j w
¢
C
r���
U
m
Q
j
a
W
j❑
N
N
to
N
Q
K
O
O
Z
m
J
O f
Z
u
u
cai
j
j
j
j
�d
0
¢
wQw
m
❑
Z
m
W
s
J
U F
cai
K
[Y
K
5
N
Wa
U
N
m
y
N❑
F¢
F¢
J
J
O
� J
Nn
N
h
n
M
M
N
N
_
_
m
H
b
ma
z
Z
0
2
0
z$
0
w
a
N
m
0
LL
LL
LL
U
U
U
U
C'1
H
LL
11
F
U
LL
LL H
n
A
N
n
b
b<
O
2
❑
0
0
iG
O
b
O
of
Q@
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
m
O
O
J
p
O
VI
N
y
N
fn
VI
N
1n
n
�
N
!A
N
F
J
N
�/1
AGENDA SECTIi
Consent
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Rochester Intemational Airport
EM DESCRIPTION: Amendment of the Professional Services Agreement with McGhie &
Betts Tranportation Services, Inc.
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
MEETING
DATE: 9/18/06
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
Steven W. Legve
1. Amend the Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts Transportation Services, Inc. to include
program management and project closeout services for the Security/Safety Fencing Project. These services
were originally under contract with ACSG, Inc., dated February 2006. The original contract has been cancelled
due to a change in personnel and the remaining balance will be transferred with this amendment. There will be
no change in cost.
Funding: 95% Federal
5% Local
2. Amend the Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts Transportation Services, Inc. to include
program management and project closeout services for the Maintenance/ARFF Building Expansion Project.
These services were originally under contract with ACSG, Inc., dated February 2006. The original contract has
been cancelled due to a change in personnel and the remaining balance will be transferred with this amendment.
There will be no change in cost.
Funding: 95% Federal
5% Local
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute these two amendments with McGhie & Betts
Transportation Services, Inc.
:OUNCiII ACTION: Motion by: Second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 09/18/06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK
ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PREPARED Y:
BETHANY
GERBER
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.
MISCELLANEOUS
John Marshall High School
1510 14' Street NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Homecoming Parade 09/29/06 3:45 PM to 4:30 PM
Support Our Troups Parade
Terry Trondson
2525 Schuster Lane NW
Rochester, MN 55901 09/23/06 12:30 PM to 1:00 PM
Knights of Columbus 10 K Race
8684 Ridge Crest Dr. NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Holy Spirit School 10/28/06 9:30 AM to 11:00 AM
CIRCUS PERMIT
Rochester Shrine Club Circus Royale
2002 2"d Street SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Mayo Civic Center 09/30/06
HOUSE MOVING PERMIT
Progressive Movers/Steve Aylsworth
6463 50' Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
From Olmsted County Fairgrounds to Chatfield Township
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
September 18", 2006
SIDEWALKS -CEMENT
Midwest ICF Construction
Michael J. McConnell
2226-311a' Street
Decorah, IA 52101
SIDEWALK -ASPHALT
Rochester Sand and Gravel
4105 East River Road NE
Rochester, MN 55906
TEMPORARY ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE
ALTEPA American Hellenic
703 West Center Street
Rochester, MN 55901
Greek Celebration at Graham Arena 09/29/06
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /3
DATE: 9/18/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
City Clerk
D- t'O
ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2:00 AM Liquor Sales Review
PREPARED BY:
Judy Scheer
In October 2003 the Council approved an amendment to RCO 125A to allow liquor sales to
continue to 2:00 AM and allowed establishments to stay open until 3:30 AM.
We have continued to review this matter annually to determine the impact to the community and
public safety. At the 2005 review, Councilmember Marcoux asked that input should be received
from the Olmsted County Sheriff, Olmsted County Commissioners and State Patrol to determine
the continuance of the closing time.
The County Board included the request for input on their September 12`° County Board agenda
but did not have any comments on the matter.
The attached memo from Chief Peterson indicates that neither the Sheriff s Office or State Patrol
expressed significant concern on the 2:00 AM bar closing time. Chief Peterson does indicate that
there have been increased DUI and traffic accidents since the implementation of the later bar
closing but that there are other factors that could also contribute to this increase.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to amend RCO 125A allowing for the continuation of liquor sales until 2:00 AM and
allowing establishments to stay open until 3:30 AM.
..:OUNCIL ACTION: moton by: second by: to:
N
MEMORANDUM
Rochester Police Department
Administration
DATE: September 5, 2006
TO: Steve Kvenvold
FROM: Roger Peterson
SUBJECT: 2 AM Bar Closing
In order to provide the Council information regarding renewal of the 2 AM Bar closing
ordinance, a year to year comparison of DUI arrests and traffic accidents occurring
between the hours of midnight to 4 AM has been compiled. This information indicates
that, although DUI arrests and traffic accidents initially increased after the
implementation of 2 AM bar closing, incidents in both categories have since declined.
(See attached graphs.)
The Sheriffs Office and the State Patrol were asked for input regarding this issue.
Neither expressed significant concern. The State Patrol indicated that the total number of
DUI Arrests made by their agency had gone up but noted that the increase may have been
the result of the increase in patrol hours due to funding provided by fees for 2 AM
closing.
The Council should be aware that trends in DUI arrests and accident rates are subject to a
number of other factors and the data supplied cannot provide a basis to conclude that the
implementation of 2 AM bar closing is a causal factor in either an increase or decrease in
these rates.
3(
City DUI Arrests
coos 2004 2005 zoos
County DUI Arrests
zoos zDD{ zoos zoos
After an initial rise in DUI arrests
after the implementation of 2 AM
bar closing, DUI arrests between
midnight and 4 AM have
decreased.
(2006 figures are projected)
County DUI Arrests continued to
rise in 2005 but dropped in 2006.
(2006 projected)
4
City Traffic Accidents
2003 2004 2005 2006
County Traffic Accidents
2003 2004 2005 2006
Traffic Accidents in the City
between midnight an 4 AM
also rose after the
implementation of 2 AM bar
closing, but have since declined
consistent with DUI arrests.
(2006 projected)
County Traffic accidents
demonstrated a similar pattern.
(2006 projected)
3I
Combined DUI arrests for the
City and County between
midnight and 4 AM have
demonstrated a downward
trend after the initial increase
after 2 AM bar closing was
implemented.
The total number of traffic
accidents between midnight
and 4 AM has demonstrated the
same pattern.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 91
3�
CONSENT AGENDA
City Clerk
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Application for Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License -Patrick Jerome PKtrAKtu
Devney dba Dream Lodge Gifts Judy Scherr
An application has been received from Patrick Jerome Devney dba Dream Lodge Gifts at #20,
Second Avenue S.W., Kahler Hotel Lobby, for an Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. The
Kahler Hotel has approved the use of the space for the off -sale business.
A confidential investigative report has been returned from the Police Department approved.
Approval is contingent upon departmental approvals and payment of the license fee.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED
A motion to approve the application from Patrick Jerome Devney dba Dream Lodge Gifts at #20,
Second Avenue S.W., Kahler Hotel Lobby, for an Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License
contingent upon departmental approvals and payment of the license fee.
COUNCIL ACTION: Molon by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ki
DATE: 9/18/06
CONSENT AGENDA
City Clerk
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Transfer of On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor for TGI Friday's PREPARED
Judy Scherr
An application for transfer of the On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor Licenses for TGI
Friday's at 300 Highway 52 North has been received from Gopher Restaurants, Inc. of Eau Claire,
Wisconsin. The previous ownership was held since 1993 by Restech Partners, Inc. of Willmar,
Minnesota.
A confidential investigative report has been completed by the Rochester Police Department and
has come back approved. The transfer of the license is contingent upon receipt of departmental
approvals.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the transfer of the On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor Licenses for TGI
Friday's at 300 Highway 52 North from Restech Partners, Inc. to Gopher Restaurants, Inc.
t:OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Aly
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING'
DATE: 9/18/06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda Finance Department 3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
Approval of Accounts Payable Dale Martinson
Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements:
Investment purchases of $1,360,369.69
Accounts payable of $5,587,823.49
Total disbursements $6,948,193.18
(Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately.)
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by, to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE 9/18/06 4
_�nsent
Human Resources
Agreement with Driver and Vehicle Services — MN Department of Public Safety
Linda
In order to ensure that City employees authorized to use City vehicles are licensed to drive in
Minnesota, HR staff members are directed to check the validity of Minnesota drivel's licenses on a
scheduled basis. The attached agreement allows HR staff confidential access at no cost to the data
base maintained by Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS), Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize Mayor and City Clerk to sign the DVS Business Partner Employee Web Application Agreement
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
to:
10
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DVS BUSINESS PARTNER RECORDS ACCESS AGREEMENT
This contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Department of Public Safety. Driver and Vehicle Services Division (hereinafter
"STATE"), and the City of Rochester, Minnesota located at 201 4' Street SE, Rochester, Minnesota (hereinafter "DVS BUSINESS PARTNER").
1 understand that by signing this contract 1 am agreeing to the following terms and conditions for gaining access to the STATE's Driver and
Vehicle Services Division (hereinafter "DVS") records for a DVS BUSINESS PARTNER business and only for the uses described in the DVS
Business Partners intended use statement
1. Access to the DVS records will be restricted for the use of the DVS BUSINESS PARTNER employee who needs access to in order to perform
their DVS BUSINESS PARTNER duties.
2. The DVS records information obtained by the DVS BUSINESS PARTNER will not be used for personal or non -business purposes. The DVS
records information obtained by the DVS BUSINESS PARTNER will only be used in the normal course of DVS BUSINESS PARTNER
business and only for the uses described in the DVS Business Partners intended use statement.
3. Each DVS BUSINESS PARTNER employee accessing the records will be required to sign a DVSBusiness Partner Employee Record Access
Agreement regarding usage, and dissemination of the STATE data This form will be maintained with the DYS BUSINESS PARTNER
records and submitted to the designated STATE personnel upon request
4. The DVS BUSINESS PARTNER employee, records access, will be restricted to only that data information necessary to perform their DVS
BUSINESS PARTNER duties.
5. The DVS BUSINESS PARTNER will inform the STATE as to what records the DVS BUSINESS PARTNER employee needs access to in
order to perform their DVS BUSINESS PARTNER duties.
6. The STATE will be notified by the DVS BUSINESS PARTNER immediately when a DVS BUSINESS PARTNER employee has left the DVS
BUSINESS PARTNER, and that the DVS BUSINESS PARTNER employee access should be deleted.
7. Each DVS BUSINESS PARTNER employee will be assigned their own personal login identification code and password by the STATE, and th
DVS BUSINESS PARTNER employee's password information will not be shared with other DVS BUSINESS PARTNER employees or their
supervisors.
8. The DVS BUSINESS PARTNER understands that improper use or release of the data information contained on the DVS records will result in
loss of record access as well as possible civil penalties under both state and federal laws.
9. Fees
Non -government accounts pay an established fee for each inquiry based on the attached Exhibit C. This fee is automatically deducted from the
account balance every time an inquiry is made. The customer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an account balance sufficient to
cover individual usage.
10. Liability
The DVS BUSINESS PARTNER will indemnify, save, and hold the STATE, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes of
action, including attomey's fees incurred by the STATE, arising from the performance of this agreement by the DVS BUSINESS PARTNER or
the DVS BUSINESS PARTNERS agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the DVS BUSINESS
PARTNER may have for the STATE's failure to fulfill its obligations under this agreement.
11. Government Data Practices
The DVS BUSINESS PARTNER and STATE must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 and US
Code title 18 § 2721, as they apply to all data provided by the STATE under this agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected,
received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the DVS BUSINESS PARTNER under this agreement. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat.
§ 13.08 and 13.09, and US Code title 18 § 2721 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the DVS BUSINESS
PARTNER or the STATE. (See Attachments A & B.)
12. Audits
Audits will be conducted at the Business Partner's expense.
13. Termination
The STATE or the DVS BUSINESS PARTNER may terminate this agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon written notice to the
other party.
14. Intended Use Statement 441
INTENDED USE STATEMENT
I. Under what law or authority are you entitled to receive the data? (Cite Statute or Title number and subdivision or item.)
United States Code title 18 section 2721 Item 9 "For use by an employer or its agent or insurer to obtain or verify information relating to a
holder of a commercial driver's license that is reouired under the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. App. 2710 et seo.l"
and Item 14 "For any other use specifically authorized under the law of the State that holds the record if such use is related to the operation of a
motor vehicle or public safety
2. How will you use the record? To verify driver license status and the type of license of employees and prospective employees who are
required to operate a City motor vehicle or have access to the operation of a city motor vehicle.
3. Explain or give a specific example of how you intend to use record information in your project or normal work environment: (Do not quote
permitting authority, but describe specific examples of how you will use the data in your own words. Add additional page if necessary.)
Prior to an individual beginning employment with the Ciri of Rochester in a position requiring the operation of a motor vehicle, the city must
verify the driver license status and the type of license i.e. commercial driver license The City's fleet insurer requests that we verify the driver
license status and the ripe license of employees who are required to operate a commercial motor vehicle These checks are made every six
months They also request we run an annual driver license check on all city employees who have access to the operation of a city motor vehicle.
I the undersigned as a "Purchaser" that by signing this agreement that the information provided on this document is correct, and I agree to the terms
and conditions for intended use of the State's data as defined in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, which is attached and incorporated into this agreement by
reference. The Purchaser must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Chapter 13, and US Code title 18 § 2721, as
they apply to all data provided by the State under this agreement. The Purchaser will indemnify, save, and hold the State, and its agents, and
employees harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorney's fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this
agreement by the Purchaser or the Purchaser's agent, employees or customers. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 and 13.09, and US Code
title 18 § 2721 apply to the release of the data referred to in the clause by either the Purchaser or the State.
1. DVS BUSINESS PARTNER 2. STATE AGENCY
By:
(with delegated authority)
Title:
In
Title:
Date: Date:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
'
MEETING
DATE: 9-18-
I
AGENDA SECTION h ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
W nQ Ati-
SPLANNING t�:)_ l�
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Wetland Ordinance Text Amendment #06-01 was adopted by the PREPARED BY:
Council on August 21, 2006, The second reading is scheduled for September 18, 2006. The Phil Wheeler, AICP
attached ordinance makes one minor clarifying revision to the version reviewed at the Planning Director
August meeting.
September 6, 2006
Wade DuMond, formerly of Yaggy Colby and Associates, raised a question about the application of the ordinance to areas
where the Decorah Shale, Platteville, or Glenwood formations are the first encountered bedrock, but there is no possibility of
groundwater flow from the Cummingsville. The intent of the ordinance adopted by the Council is to exclude such areas from
the Decorah Edge, but the language adopted by the Council on August 21, 2006, only partly excludes such areas. Where such
areas are isolated from the Cummingsville by valleys cut into the St. Peter, the August 21, 2006 ordinance clearly excludes
them. Where such areas are separated from the Cummingsville by a topographic saddle, the same principle should apply. The
following underlined language augments the August 21, 2006 draft by addressing topographic saddles.
Subd. 2. Decorah Edge. The term "Decorah Edge" shall include the area:
A. in which the Decorah, Platteville or Glenwood formation is the first -encountered
bedrock according to the "Bedrock Geology: Steele, Dodge, Olmsted and Winona
Counties" data plat produced by the Minnesota Geological Survey — University of
Minnesota in 2004, as modified by field investigation, reliable well logs or more precise
mapping;
B. having a depth to bedrock of less than twenty-five feet according to the "Depth to
Bedrock: Steele, Dodge, Olmsted and Winona Counties" data plate produced by the
Minnesota Geological Survey — University of Minnesota in 2004, as modified by field
investigation, reliable well logs or more precise mapping; and,
C. for which there are contiguous adjacent areas with the Cummingsville or higher
(Stewartville or Prosser) formations as the first encountered bedrock. An area for which
the first encountered bedrock is the Decorah Shale, Platteville Limestone or Glenwood
Shale that is separated from the Cummingsville or higher formations by a topographic
saddle and is at a higher elevation than the saddle is also excluded from the Decorah
Edge For purposes of this subdivision the term "saddle" means a ridge between two
peaks or summits.
The dictionary definition of "saddle" in this context is "a ridge between two peaks or summits" Because the dictionary definition
applies, we do not need to add such a definition to our ordinance.
Attachments:
1. Revised ordinance amendment text.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
Council Action Needed:
Approve the revised ordinance in the action on the second reading.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by
to:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND ENACTING
SECTIONS 59.15 AND 59.16, AND AMENDING AND
REENACTING SECTIONS 59.01, 59.02, 59.05, 59.06,
59.07, 59.08, 59.09, 59.10, 59.11, 59.12, 59.13, AND
59.14 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF
ORDINANCES, RELATING TO WETLAND
CONSERVATION AND REGULATION.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 59.15 to the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
59.15. High Priority Areas. The City of Rochester is designated a
high priority area under Minnesota Rules. Decisions regarding sequencing,
replacement plans, and banking shall particularly favor preservation, restoration,
and creation of wetlands in high priority areas as identified in water management
plans pursuant to Minn. Rules part 8420.0350.
Section 2. Section 59.16 to the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
59.16. Delegation. The City of Rochester may by joint powers
agreement delegate to the soil and water conservation district under Minn. Stat. §§
471.59 and 103C.331, subdivision 19, the authority to administer all or any part of
this ordinance.
Section 3. Section 59.01 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.01. Purpose. This ordinance is adopted to implement the
Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, (Minn. Laws 1991 chapter 354, as amended
by Laws 1993, chapter 175, and as hereafter amended ("WCA")), and the
accompanying rules of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (Minn.
Rules chapter 8420, as amended); and to protect the biological diversity and water
quality and water quantity benefits of wetlands and related features particularly in
areas of the City with significant groundwater discharge, interflow and recharge
characteristics.
Section 2. Section 59.02 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.02. Definitions and Map. Subdivision 1. Incorporation by
RCO 59 August 21, 2006
Page 2 of 10
Reference. This ordinance incorporates by reference the WCA and Minnesota
Rules Chapter 8420. Except as provided in Subdivisions 2 through 6, terms used
in this ordinance which are defined in the Act or the Rules have the meanings
given there.
area:
Subd. 2. Decorah Edge. The term "Decorah Edge" shall include the
A. in which the Decorah, Platteville or Glenwood formation is the first -
encountered bedrock according to the `Bedrock Geology: Steele,
Dodge, Olmsted and Winona Counties" data plat produced by the
Minnesota Geological Survey — University of Minnesota in 2004, as
modified by field investigation, reliable well logs or more precise
mapping;
B. having a depth to bedrock of less than twenty-five feet according to
the "Depth to Bedrock: Steele, Dodge, Olmsted and Winona
Counties" data plate produced by the Minnesota Geological Survey —
University of Minnesota in 2004, as modified by field investigation,
reliable well logs or more precise mapping; and,
C. for which there are contiguous adjacent areas with the
Cummingsville or higher (Stewartville or Prosser) formations as the
first encountered bedrock. An area for which the first encountered
bedrock is the Decorah Shale Platteville Limestone, or Glenwood
Shale that is separated from the Cummingsville or higher formations
by a topographic saddle and is at a higher elevation than the saddle,
is also excluded from the Decorah Edge. For purposes of this
subdivision the term "saddle" means a ridge between two peaks or
summits.
Subd.3. Groundwater Supported Wetland. The term "groundwater
supported wetland" shall include a wetland area that is saturated predominately by
ground water, including wetlands in the vicinity of springs or seeps. Such wetlands
may be associated with highly organic peat -like soils such as Haverhill (474B) and
Palms (528B) soils.
Subd. 4. Edge Support Area. The term "Edge Support Area" shall
include non -wetland areas with features associated with perched groundwater
tables, groundwater discharges or groundwater water supported wetlands located
in the Decorah Edge, including:
A. Haverhill (474B), Root (471) and Palms (528B) soils;
B. Areas where the seasonal groundwater table is within five feet of the
surface and slopes are under 18%, including Shullsburg (312B or
RCO 59 August 21, 2006
Page 3of10
312C), Littleton (477B), and similar soils;
C. Areas with slopes over 18% within 50 feet of groundwater supported
wetlands or Haverhill (474B), Palms (528B), Shullsburg (312B or
312C), Littleton (477B) or similar soils;
D. Areas within 50 feet of springs;
E. Areas within 50 feet of seeps;
F. Areas of hydric soils in and adjacent to drainage ways draining
groundwater supported wetlands;
G. Areas within 50 feet of a perennial or ephemeral stream in the
Decorah Edge; and,
H. Areas of hydric soils buried by sedimentation adjacent to
groundwater supported wetlands or in proximity to and at the same
approximate elevation as groundwater supported wetlands.
Subd. 5. Minor Watershed. The term "minor watershed" shall mean a
minor watershed as defined and mapped by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Division of Waters in 1999, as revised, and distributed by the Land
Management Information Center.
Subd. 6. Map. The Planning Department shall maintain maps showing
the approximate location and extent of the Decorah Edge. The maps will include
those areas of the County within the boundary of the Decorah Edge as defined
herein, plus, for the bedrock geology map only, an adjacent area determined
based on half the distance of the reported accuracy of the source map. [In the
case of the MGS bedrock geology map cited above, the reported accuracy is 100
meters or 330 feet, resulting in an added dimension of 50 meters or 165 feet.]
The dimension of the adjacent area shall reflect the accuracy of the source
maps, and is not intended as a buffer area. Where detailed site investigation
identifies more accurate information as to the location and extent of the Decorah,
Platteville, or Glenwood formations and areas of associated groundwater
movements in adjacent portions of the Cummingsville and St. Peter formations,
the detailed site information shall apply. The Planning Department shall maintain
copies of the most current maps and update the maps from time to time as more
reliable information becomes available.
Section 3. Section 59.05 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.05. Scope. Subdivision 1. This ordinance regulates the excavating,
RCO 59 August 21, 2006
Page 4 of 10
hydrologic alteration, draining and filling of wetlands, parts of wetlands and Edge
Support Areas within the City of Rochester.
Subd.2. In the event that an inconsistency exists between the
provisions of state law, the Rules and this chapter, the provision that provides the
most wetland protection shall apply.
Subd. 3. Wetlands in General. Except as provided in the exemption
and no -loss determination sections hereinafter described, wetlands within the City
of Rochester may not be excavated, drained or filled wholly or partially unless
replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value.
Subd. 4. Field Investigation. The Zoning Administrator shall rely on the
most current published soil survey, unless supplemented by a first order soil
survey or corrected by on -site investigation, as a guide to identifying areas to be
investigated for wetlands and Edge Support Areas.
Section 4. Section 59.06 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.06 Areas Provided Special Protection. Subdivision 1. Except as
provided in sections 59.07, 59.08 or subdivision 2, 3, or 4 of this section,
groundwater supported wetlands and Edge Support Areas may not be excavated,
altered hydrologically, drained or filled wholly or partially. Development activities
must be carried out in such a way as to maintain groundwater flow to or from a
wetland, and to protect the quality, functions and values of the wetland as
determined by the MnRAM method.
Subd.2. All areas of buildable lots identified either in plats or general
development plans (excluding outlots) shall be exempt from the special protection
provided to Edge Support Areas if
A. part or all of the lot received interim or final grading plan approval by both the
City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator prior to October 1, 2006; or
B. the lot is part of a final plat approved prior to October 1, 2006.
Subd.3 All areas of buildable lots shall be exempt from the special
protection provided to groundwater supported wetlands if the lot is included in a
development for which a replacement plan has been approved prior to October 1, 2006
addressing the groundwater supported wetland.
Subd. 4. Section 59.06 Subdivision 1 shall not apply if the process
described in Section 59.09 is followed with the resulting determination that there
exists one of the following findings:
I
\ RCO 59 August 21, 2006
Page 5 of 10
A. The development activity involves the construction of local
collectors or higher order streets, where the Council has
found in its approval of a general development plan that:
(1) The traffic service standards of Section 61.526 cannot
be met without providing for the street in question;
(2) The street in question is designated as a primary
collector or higher order street, or the area served is
designated as in need of a local collector in the
ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; and,
(3) The proposed alignment causes the least disruption to
groundwater discharge interflow and recharge
characteristics in comparison with suitable and
practical alternative alignments; or
B. The development activity involves the modification,
realignment or other improvement of an existing public road
by a road authority; or
C. The development activity involves the construction of other
infrastructure of a regional nature, such as regional trails,
major power lines, regional stormwater ponds, water mains,
or sewer interceptors, where the Council has determined that
the proposed alignment causes the least disruption to
groundwater discharge, interflow and recharge characteristics
in comparison with suitable and practical aitemative
alignments; or
D. The development activity involves the construction of park
facilities in GDP's or subdivisions approved prior to October 1,
2006; or
E. The development activity involves the construction of a new
road in a development that is needed to provide secondary
access to a residential area that would otherwise result in
more than 50 homes relying on a single access, where the
Council has determined that the platted alignment causes the
least disruption to groundwater discharge, interflow and
recharge characteristics, in comparison with suitable and
practical alternative alignments and where the requirement for
secondary access has not been waived; or
F. The development activity involves the alteration of
groundwater supported wetlands in conjunction with
RCO 59 August 21, 2006
Page 6 of 10
restoration or enhancement projects that are in accordance
with section 59.09. Enhanced or restored groundwater
supported wetlands must be of at least equal function and
value as determined by the MnRAM Assessment Method
located in the same geologic setting (fill or bedrock -
dominated), and in the same minor watershed.
Section 5. Section 59.07 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and
reenacted to read as follows:
59.07. Exemptions. A landowner may claim exemption from the
provisions of the WCA and this Chapter if the property to be drained, filled,
hydrologically altered, or excavated meets the exemption criteria contained in
Minn. Rules part 8420.0120, which applies to wetlands. Any Edge Support Area
associated with an exempted groundwater supported wetland shall also be
exempted. Exemption determinations under Minn. Rules part 8420.0210 shall be
made by the zoning administrator. A landowner intending to excavate,
hydrologically alter, drain or fill a wetland without replacement, claiming exemption,
shall make application to the zoning administrator before beginning excavation,
draining or filling activities for determination whether or not the activity is exempt.
The zoning administrator may seek the advice of the technical evaluation panel on
questions of wetland size and type. The administrator's decision is final unless
appealed to the common council within 30 days after written notice of the zoning
administrator's determination is mailed to the applicant. An exemption certificate
shall be provided the landowner upon the zoning administrator's or common
council's determination that the activity qualifies for exemption. The authority
granted by the certificate shall be stayed during the time an -.appeal is pending
before the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
Section 6. Section 59.08 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.08. No -Loss. Subdivision 1. A landowner unsure if proposed
work will result in a loss of wetlands may apply for a no -loss determination. No -
loss determinations under Minn. Rules part 8420.0220 shall be made by the
zoning administrator. The zoning administrator should seek the advice of the
technical evaluation panel on questions of wetland delineation and type. The
administrator's decision is final unless appealed to the common council within 30
days after written notice of the zoning administrator's determination is mailed to the
applicant.
Subd. 2. A no -loss certificate shall be provided the landowner upon the
zoning administrator's or common council's determination that:
A. The work will not drain or fill a wetland;
N RCO 59 August 21, 2006
Page 7 of 10
B. Water level management activities will not result in the conversion of
a wetland to another land use;
C. The activities are in a surface impoundment for containment of fossil
fuel combustion waste or water retention and are not part of a
compensatory wetland mitigation program; or
D. The activity is being conducted as part of an approved replacement
plan or is conducted or authorized by public agencies for the purpose
of wetland restoration and the activity is restricted to placing fill in a
previously excavated drainage system to restore a wetland to its
original condition.
Subd.3. The landowner applying for a no -loss determination is
responsible for submitting the proof necessary to show qualification for this
determination. The authority granted by the certificate shall be stayed during the
time an appeal is pending before the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
Section 7. Section 59.09 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.09. Sequencing and Replacement Plan Decisions. Subdivision 1.
A landowner intending to drain or fill a wetland who does not qualify for an
exemption or no -loss determination shall obtain approval of a replacement plan
from the common council except that if the amount of wetland to be drained or
filled is less than one -tenth of an acre, the sequencing determination under Minn.
Rules part 8420.0520 shall be made by the zoning administrator. Replacement
plans intended to mitigate activities within the City of Rochester must involve the
replacement or rehabilitation of properties located within Olmsted County.
Subd. 2. Sequencing and replacement plan decisions under Minn. Rules
parts 8420.0230 and 8420.0520 - .0550 and decisions regarding exceptions under
59.06 subdivision 2 shall be made pursuant to the following procedures:
A. Application for wetland replacement plans must be submitted to the
zoning administrator.
B. The zoning administrator shall, within ten days, transmit a copy of
the application and invitation to comment to the following: Board of
Water and Soil Resources for publication in the Environmental
Quality Report; members of the public who have requested a copy;
the soil and water conservation district; the watershed district or
water management organization, if one; the county board; mayors of
cities within the watershed; and the commissioners of agriculture and
natural resources. The planning staff shall also publish notice of the
application in a local general circulation newspaper in the city within
RCO 59 August 21, 2006
Page 8 of 10
the same 10 day period.
C. The zoning administrator shall, within 20 days of receipt of the
application, schedule a public hearing before the common council to
consider the application. The hearing shall be established not earlier
than 30 days after the later of the giving of notice, publication of the
notice of application in the Environmental Quality Report, or
publication in the local general circulation newspaper. Prior to said
hearing the zoning administrator shall prepare a report
recommending approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of
the proposed replacement plan. The report shall contain all referral
comments and any additional information provided by the applicant.
D. The common council shall act upon the application not earlier than
30 days, nor later than 60 days, after the later of the giving of notice,
publication of the notice of application in the Environmental Quality
Report, or publication in the local general circulation newspaper.
The common council may approve, approve with conditions, or
disapprove the replacement plan application.
E. The common council must base its decisions on the replacement
standards in Minn. Rules parts 8420.0500 to 8420.0630, and on the
technical determinations of the technical evaluation panel concerning
the public values, location, size, and type of the wetland being
altered.
F. The decision of the common council shall be mailed to all parties
listed in subpart 2 above and to the applicant. The mailing .to the
applicant shall be by registered mail and must advise that the
decision is not effective for 30 days, and is stayed if appeal is made
to the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
Section 8. Section 59.10 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59,10. Monitoring. The zoning administrator shall assure that the
replacement plan monitoring and enforcement requirements of Minn. Rules parts
8420.0600 - .0630 and 8420.0750, subp. 2A are fulfilled. The zoning administrator
may request the technical review panel to assist in answering technical questions
concerning the replacement plan and to assist in monitoring the replacement
wetland.
Section 9. Section 59.11 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.11. Wetland Banking. Subdivision 1. Wetlands may be restored
RCO 59 August 21, 2006
Page 9 of 10
or created within the City of Rochester for purposes of deposit in the wetland bank
in accordance with Minn. Rules parts 8420.0700 - .0760. The zoning administrator
is responsible for approving bank plans, certifying deposits, and the monitoring of
banked wetlands and enforcement under the rules
Subd. 2. Only wetland credits from wetlands restored or created within
Olmsted County may be used when the draining or filling of a wetland within the
City is to be done without replacement. An application to the City Council must be
made for a sequencing determination pursuant to Minn. Rules part 8420.0520 prior
to use of the wetland credits maintained in the wetland bank. The city council shall
seek assistance from the Technical Evaluation Panel and the zoning administrator
prior to approval.
Section 10. Section 59.12 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.12. Fees. The common council shall by resolution adopt a
schedule of fees applicable to no -net loss determinations, exemption
determinations, replacement plan determinations, and banking plan
determinations. The amount of the fees shall not exceed the reasonable value of
the functions undertaken by the LGU.
Section 11. Section 59.13 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.13. Appeals and Exceptions. Decisions _made under this
ordinance by the zoning administrator may be appealed to the Common Council.
Except for decisions related to Edge Support Areas, decisions of the Common
Council may be appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR)
under Minn. Rules part 8420.0250 after final determination by the Common
Council. Requests for exceptions to provisions of this ordinance related to Edge
Support Areas (in which the applicant contends that the ordinance should not be
applied to the property in question, in whole or in part) shall be heard by the City
Council at the time of general development plan review, or at the time of wetland
delineation, if a general development plan is not required. Applicants may seek
exceptions to restrictions on disturbance of Edge Support Areas on the basis of
public safety concerns, other overriding public interest, unreasonable hardship,
or constraints that deny a reasonable use of the property.
Section 12. Section 59.14 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.14. Limitations. Decisions under this ordinance must not be
made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel
RCO 59 August 21, 2006
Page 10 of 10
regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the decision -maker,
the landowner, or a member of the technical panel asks for such determinations.
This requirement does not apply to wetlands for which such data is included in an
approved comprehensive wetland management plan per Minn. Rules part
8420.0240.
Section 13. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
0rd2000159.01 etseq
DAY OF
2006.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
DAY OF
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
►Me.
5�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 9/18/06
Consent Agenda Police
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Donations to Police Department PREPARED BY
Roger Peterson
A donation of $100 has been received from Dawn Miner for use towards medical care for the department's
canines.
A donation of $25 has been received from David and Susan Bierly. They would like the fitnds to be used for dui
education.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Acceptance of donated funds as indicated above.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second byt to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING `6
DATE: 9/18/06
A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda Police D-'
REM DESCRIPTION: Donation to Police Department PREPARED BY:
Roger Peterson
A donation of $50 has been received from Jim and Marian Dyck to help pay for expenses incurred
at the City Animal Control Shelter.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Acceptance of donated funds as indicated above.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to:
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �7
DATE: 09118T06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS C
ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: (J4946 & J4947) I PREPARED BY:
2006 Bikeway Paving and Reconstruction R. Kelm
Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., Sept 13, 2006 for the
Project:
City No.7503-16-95 (J4946 & J4947)
Bike Path Construction and Recondition Project
local improvement
Project Background
The city bike path system is constructed in segments using a variety of funding sources and developer
contribution. As the system develops, short gaps between sections of the path system result as the construction
obligation of a developer or the scope of a city project does not connect to another nearby path section. The city
needs to complete short path segments to close these gaps that remain. Four gaps have been identified:
a. On 551n Street NW between the park entrance and the path on 55 h just west of the Douglas Trail.
b. On 41 "Street NW between the North Star Business Center and the path on 41" Street just east of the
Douglas Trail.
c. On South Broadway between the north end of the path at WalMart and the pedestrian bridge at Golden
Hills School.
d. 2nd Street SW near Grandville housing development.
In addition to the construction of short bike path segments needed to connect sections of bike path, some
segments of path require reconditioning. The segment of path along the north side of 121" Street SW (TH 14) and
continuing along the east side of 14t" Avenue SW needs to be reconditioned. The Project to construct public
sidewalk at various locations was included in the City's 2005 — 2010 Capital Improvement Program, with a
recommended 2005 construction.
This bike path improvement work is identified in the 2006-2011 CIP on page 50, Lines 2 & 3. These projects will
be completed in 2007.
The following bids were received:
Total Bid
1. Elcor Construction $ 111,590.00
2. Rochester Sand & Gravel $ 124,275.00
3. Road Constructors Inc. $ 145,027.00
Engineers Estimate $ 114,170.00
Project Recommendation:
The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution awarding the contract, City Project No. (J4946 & J4947) Bike Path Construction and Recondition
Project" to Elcor Construction.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
ULocation Map
2006 Bike Path Construction and Recondition Project
City No. 7503-16-95 (J4946 & J4947)
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE:
AGENDA
I I eM
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
NO.
ROCHESTER CITY LINES / SALE OF TRANSIT BUSES PREPARED E
A KNAUER
This is a recommendation to sell eleven 1980 model buses to Rochester City Lines.
The buses have passed their useful life having a range of mileage between 473,000 and 677,000.
On their disposal the City will provide 80% of the proceeds to FTA based on the original federal
share when they were purchased. The buses are no longer used in the fleet.
The buses were purchased in 3 groups between February, 1981 and March, 1982. The buses
were purchased from the Rochester City Lines (RCL) with federal approval. RCL provided the local
20% share. As part of the arrangement RCL was given aright to purchase the buses after
expiration of the lease. The agreement noted that the disposal price must be based on an
appraisal or fair market value. This method of disposal was approved by USDOT at the time.
Attached per Exhibit "A" is list of the 11 buses and summary of two appraisals. Due to the age of
the buses it was difficult to find many comparables. However, written valuations were obtained
from two sources. Coach Crafters is a bus repair/sales company with national exposure. Bus
Solutions is a national company that publishes the "Official Blue Book" for buses. Coach Crafters
provided a range of $300-$500 for the GMC 5307s and $800-$1,200 for the 1980 GMC RTS. Bus
Solutions suggested a value range of $1,000 to $1,400 for the 5307s and $3,700 to $4,900 forthe
RTS.
Also included on Exhibit "A" are columns showing RCL's initial offer and the City's recommended
value. Staff recommended the lesser of the highest ranged appraisal which was $1,000 per bus for
the 5307s, $300 for the parts bus and $3,700 for the RTS. The total valuation for the buses came
to $13,000 of which the federal share is $10,400. Under the original purchase agreement the City
can offer the buses to RCL for 80% of the appraised value. (RCL provided the local 20%). This
amounts to $10,400 for the buses. RCL has agreed that the buses will not be used for any type of
passenger service in the City of Rochester due to the older emission standards.
The FTA per Exhibit "B" has approved of the method of disposal and the valuations.
It is important to note that this arrangement which was negotiated in the early 1980s
was rather unique. The buses purchased after that date were funded with 20% City
funds and will be disposed of on the open market via a bid process.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving the sale of the buses per Exhibit "A" to Rochester City
Lines for $10,400.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
SAW evr A
NNNNNNNNNN N
W
U
a
m st m O N n M n N m N
O m O m n tq
� H W m cm m rn n� .- o
z _ O C1
ID m n fG N n@ m O n 0
'oLLI
W
1' J
0 o a e o 0 o a o 0
W 'ir w w P OQ1 M w w w p M p N
2 W
� U
� a
4
Z
O
N
y-j m 0
Q a ' O ITV N m N m m N
on'
m
J
m
m
zz
z o
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
o
a a
Z
O
H
Z
Z
z
y
Z
}
Z
Z
0
D
Z
y
a
a a
a
a a
a a
a
a o e
O T
IL9 N
1[
N N
q Im[I
N
N G
❑ i
u u
u
u f
f E
E
E E z
� (9
C7 O
(9U
'7
O U'
O
:� V' ❑
m
Q
N
a
w
z
F
0
i e 4
r
a
- - —4 — - — — - N
N
6
H
W
0 D
n N
O
W J
Q
X
xQo
W ❑
W
H H H H
H
Lu
o OOO
a m
N
Ua
LL
a M
m
J
J
a
W
a
p
H H H H
F
o 0
0
w
p o n
n
Z
W
0
U
LLI
a: 9 A
9
C o
0
0
W
0
0
w
LL
W
F-
J
O
x
z
z
Z
0
o
r a
m
� �
v
J q
µ
o
N O
o
N O
n
m
IL w
H
fM
K
H
LLQ
y�
O
U o
N
H
Uo
H
U w
W
m
r
CY
v
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
2016 SEP I I PM 3: 49
ROCHESTER. HINN.
U.S. Department REGION V 200 west Adams street
Illinois, Indiana, Suite 320
of Transportation Michigan, Minnesota, Chicago, IL 60606-5253
Federal Transit Ohio, Wisconsin 312-353-2789
312-886-0351 (fax)
Administration
September 6, 2006
Mr. Anthony Knauer
Transit and Parking Manager
City of Rochester
Department of Public Works
201 4' Street SE, Rm. 108
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
Re: MN-05-0007
Disposal of Buses
Dear Mr. Knauer:
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has received your letter dated August 23, 2006 requesting
concurrence on the disposal of eleven 1980 model buses. According to your letter, the vehicles have
passed their service useful life and have an appraised value of less than $5,000 each.
Based on the terms of the original agreement, the buses may be sold to Mr. George Holter for 80% of the
appraised value. As a reminder, please document the transaction in your files. FTA reserves the right to
review this transaction during a future oversight review.
If you have questions, you may contact Lisa Joiner or me at 312-353-2791.
Sar� D e j
V V Iv
Dominick J. Gatto, P.E.
Director, Office of Program Management and Oversight
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE:
AGENDA
CONSENT AGEN
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM NO. 1�Zr7
REVISED
„.iM AWARD OF BIDS / RESTORATION WORK AT CIVIC PREPARED BY:
CENTER AND THIRD STREET PARKING RAMPS I A KNAUER
Bids were opened on September 13, 2006 for restoration work at the Civic Center and Third Street Parking
Ramps. The restoration work was identified in a condition study reports prepared for each facility by Building
Consulting Group. (Condition surveys are conducted for each parking ramp on a 4year cycle.) RAM Building
Restoration and Waterproofing of Little Canada, Minnesota was the low bidder at $105,650. The engineer's
estimate was $147,300.
Following is a summary of the bids received.
I'
RAM $ 105&N LOW BID
Brent Anderson $ 120,775
Structural Preservation $ 124,825
Western Waterproofing $ 140,175
The project is included in the adopted CIP. Staff recommends awarding the contract to the low bidder.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
1. Adopt the prepared resolution awarding City Projects J2578-06 Civic Center Parking Ramp and J2583-06
Third Street Ramp —parking garage restoration per specifications in the amount of $105,650 to RAM Building
Restoration & Waterproofing of 3065 Spruce Street, Suite 104, Little Canada, Minnesota 55117.
:OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION "'tt""`' g-18-os
DATE:
AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM NO.
D-a,
CONSENT AGENDA
„ EM Contract with Rochester Armored Car Co., Inc.
PREPARED BY:
SRetzlaff
This is a recommendation to approve a contract with Rochester Armored Car Co., Inc. to
transport locked fare boxes from Rochester City Lines to Wells Fargo Bank. The cost of the
service is $324.75 per month.
The contract runs from 8/1/2006 through 7/31/2007
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving the contract with Rochester Armored Car Co., Inc in
an amount of $324.75 each month for the period 8/1/2006 through 7/31/2007.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract with Rochester Armored Car Co., Inc.
subject to the City Attorney's approval of the form of said contract.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
40K/
9/18/06
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITE O.
���"
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Membership in the LMC Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition
PR PARED SY:
' B. Huberty 4d144-
Cities with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits are interested in forming a
permanent, fee -based professional organization under the sponsorship of the League of Minnesota
Cities (LMC) to mutually address evolving storm water permit issues. The goals of this new Minnesota
Cities Stormwater Coalition (MCSC) are to:
• Promote staff -to -staff discussion with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
• Have representation in state agency and stakeholder group discussions affecting storm water
management
• Exercise policy influence
• Provide early input to influence the development of regulations and their implementation
• Offer a clear, unified, and effective voice on storm water issues
• Unify agency positions
• Encourage the development of meaningful and useful guidance documents
In addition to establishing these goals, a transition committee made up of city representatives has
developed the action plan, membership criteria, legal structure, steering committee make-up and duties,
and budget needed to effectively manage the activities of this group. It is estimated that an annual
budget of $75,000 is needed to cover the cost of consulting services and LMC support services.
During the development of the first permit, 117 regulated cities collaborated to produce a template for
our permit. Based on the a)pectation that participation in the MCSC will be at this approximate level, a
fee scale has been established to meet this budget goal. The fee is calculated in two parts; the first
being a flat fee that all cities pay equally and the second being based on population. Underthis plan,
the Rochester's annual fee is expected to be approximately $1,625.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
At this time, the City is being asked to sign a Letter of Understanding that acknowledges the Citys
agreement to participate in the MCSC per the terms and conditions outlined in the Letter of
Understanding.
Funding for the membership fee will come from the annual storm water utility operations budget.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by. to:
H:\Stormwater\LMC MCSC.DOC
L..r' °I mh wa. Cis.
August 30, 2006
Barb Huberty, Environmental Coordinator
City of Rochester
201 4th St SE
Rochester MN 55904
Re: Minnesota Coalition of Stormwater Cities
Dear Barb:
League of Minnesota Cities
145 University Avenue West, St Paul, MN 55103-2044
(651) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122
Fax: (651) 281-1299 • Too: (651) 281-1290
www.Imnc.org
Four years ago the LMC formed the NPDES Guide Plan Steering committee to assist members
in complying with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Phase II program. Ultimately, 117 regulated cities joined in this collaborative effort to develop a
model NPDES template, and to speak with one voice to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) in adoption of the Phase lI permit for MS4 cities. It appears that working together,
Minnesota cities saved hundred of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and achieved a more
workable and consistent outcome with the PCA.
Phase H cities now join Phase I cities (Minneapolis, St. Paul) in moving into the hard work of
implementation of the NPDES plans, and additional mandatory and discretionary cities have
been identified to come under NPDES regulation. At the same time, all cities face increased
regulation and best management practice requirements under the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL), non -degradation and impaired waters limitations of the federal Clean Water Act.
At the request of many of the cities that participated in the NPDES project, LMC has now agreed
to sponsor a new fee -based Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition (MCSC) to support cities and
their stormwater professionals in program implementation, and in continuing to have a clear,
unified, and effective voice with the MPCA and other regulatory agencies. A transition
committee of city stormwater professionals, working with LMC staff, has developed the attached
proposal for the new MCSC. As you will see, the primary means of accomplishing the goals
will be for LMC to enter a new contract for the professional services of Randy Neprash of
Bonestroo & Associates, the consultant that completed the NPDES Guide Plan project. Randy
won strong endorsement from the affected cities not only for developing the Guide Plan, but for
effectively representing their interests with the MPCA and other agencies.
Under the new contract, Randy will perform such tasks as representing cities at the MPCA
Stormwater Steering Committee, coordinate with MPCA on MS4 permit issues, and track
development of new regulations for construction site permits. As part of his work he will
regularly report back to the affected cities through electronic newsletters and the posting of
information on the LMC Website. A more complete description of the proposed Scope of
Professional Services is attached for your review.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
August 30, 2006
The estimated annual budget for this project is $75,000, most of which will be used to cover the
consultant charges and expenses. A small amount is included to cover clerical and technical
support as well as direct expenses incurred by LMC. A $15,000 reserve is also included to cover
unanticipated costs that may arise. A nine -member steering committee, made up of city
stormwater professionals, will provide oversight to the delivery of services and to the budget.
The budget will be met by fees paid by the participating cities; the allocation is based one-half an
equal sharing among all participants and one half on population. A schedule of maximum fees
for each population group is attached. Based on a reasonable expectation of participation, we
have developed the following estimated annual fee schedule:
Population Range
Annual Fee
0 - 3,000
$375
3,001 - 6,000
$470
6,001 - 10,000
$565
10,001 - 20,000
$690
20,001 - 30,000
$875
30,001 - 50,000
$1,125
50,001 - 100,000
$1,625
St. Paul
$4,500
Minneapolis
$5,500
If your city would like to participate, please sign the enclosed letter of understanding and return
it to:
Rebecca Erickson, League of Minnesota Cities
145 University Ave. W.
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
no later than Monday, October 2, 2006. Be sure to include the contact information for your
primary representative. Please do not enclose a check at this time; your city will be invoiced
once it is determined that there is sufficient interest for MCSC to be formed.
If you have questions, please contact LMC Director of Member Services Kevin Frazell at 651-
281-1215 or kfrazell@Ininc.ore.
Sincerely,
Lori Haak, Chair
MCSC Steering Committee
Water Resources Coordinator, Chanhassen
Kevin Frazell
Director of Member Services
League of Minnesota Cities
LMC
Lingua .f M;,......f. C;S..
Cni.. v.o..o6ug o J.-
September, 2006
Re: Minnesota Cities
League of Minnesota Cities
145 University Avenue West, St Paul, MN 55103-2044
(651) 281-1200 • (8D0) 925-1122
Fax: (651) 281-1299 • TDD. (651) 281-1290
www.Imno.org
Letter of Understanding
Stormwater Coalition (MCSC)
The City of XC�5�` hereby agrees to participate in the League of Minnesota
Cities' Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition (MCSC) per the terms and conditions outlined
below.
Mission
To protect Minnesota's water resources by ensuring that the policies, permits, procedures, rules,
and legislation adopted by state water resource management agencies and other regulatory
entities are both meaningful and manageable from the perspective of the regulated parties.
General Goals
• Promote staff -to -staff discussion with MPCA (e.g., TMDL baseline)
• Be cities' eyes and ears in state agency and stakeholder group discussion
• Exercise policy influence
• Influence development of regulations and implementation plans in the early stages
• Offer a consistent voice
• Help unify positions taken by agencies
• Encourage agencies to provide sample documents (e.g., construction SWPPP)
Action Plan
• Advocate for the interests of the regulated cities with regulatory agencies
• Provide input and professional advice for the LMC policy development process, but will not
take independent legislative positions
• Foster and manage communication and networking on water resource issues among regulated
cities and with state regulatory agencies and other cities
• Provide technical assistance and training for regulated cities
• Participate in state regulatory and water resource forums, such as the Stormwater Steering
Committee, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stakeholder groups, Total Maximum Daily
Load stakeholder groups, Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials, Watershed Partners,
Minnesota Public Works Association and City Engineers Association of Minnesota
• Encourage the various state agencies to keep guidance documents for regulated cities current
• Undertake special projects as appropriate
• Cooperate with other entities in developing educational materials that can be used by
regulated cities
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
i
Letter of Understanding
Page 2
August 29, 2006
Eligible Members
While interest is focused on Phase I, Phase II, mandatory and discretionary cities, all LMC
member cities may participate. Other regulated entities, i.e. interested watershed districts, may
participate for the purposes of receiving information and adding to the discussion, but will not
have formal standing in MCSC.
Legal Structure
Membership in the MCSC will become effective upon participating cities signing this Letter of
Understanding. It is understood that LMC will hire and supervise staff, retain necessary
consultants, provide fiscal and other general administrative support services. The LMC Board
has formal authority over the effort, but will appoint a nine -member Steering Committee to
provide direction and give recommendations.
Membership of Steering Committee
MCSC will work under direction of a nine member steering committee appointed by the LMC
Board of Directors. Members will serve three-year staggered terms, except to instigate the
staggered terms, initial steering committee members will each serve a one, two, or three year
term as determined by the LMC Board. The first year committee members will be: Lori Haak,
Water Resources Coordinator, Chanhassen (Chair); Jim Hafner, Stormwater Manager, Blaine;
Ross Bintner, Water Resources Engineer, Prior Lake; Bruce Westby, City Engineer, Monticello;
Bill Schluenz, Public Works Superintendent, Waite Park; Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, Golden
Valley; Terry Schultz, Director of Natural Resources, Burnsville; Andy Bradshaw, Civil
Engineer I, Moorhead; and Anne Weber, Civil Engineer, St. Paul.
Resources Provided
• MCSC participating cities will reimburse LMC for direct services and expenses such as
general administrative, Internet, and support staff services provided through LMC.
• MCSC participating cities will also reimburse LMC for the costs and expenses associated
with retaining the technical consultant for representation with regulatory agencies, member
advice, maintenance of guidance document, development of training, and input on
development of public educational materials
Maximum First Year Fee
The fee for the City of we�f�'TL— shall not exceed $ in
the first year of this agreement. Do not enclose payment at this time; your city will be invoiced
when total participation and actual fees are established.
Letter of Understanding
Page 3
August 29, 2006
LMC Limitations on Expenditures
LMC shall not authorize expenditure of funds for the MCSC beyond the amount that has been
paid by participating cities.
Term of Agreement and Renewal
Term of agreement shall be September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007.
LMC will invoice membership fees each August 1; the city will determine and notify LMC by
September 1 whether it intends to continue for the following year.
Agreed to on this date
Authorized Signature
Date
by the City of
Designation of Primary Contact for the City
Name LJ
Mailing Address T o?�� '7 d� d�
IfN
Phone # �+��/J`a17 — Y"/� Fax #
E-mail AddressJ�U�
Please return completed document to:
Rebecca Erickson, League of Minnesota Cities
145 University Ave. W.
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING V � /
DATE: 9/18/06
AGENDA SECTION:
i r EM DESCRIPTION:
AGENDA
Pedestrian Facilities Agreement
High School Property
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
535 for the Century
Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facilities Agreement for consideration by the Council:
BY:
The Public Works Department plans to construct pedestrian facilities along the frontage of the Century High School
property abutting Circle Drive NE. Independent School District 535 (ISD 535), the owner of the property,
acknowledges its obligation to provide pedestrian facilities along the frontage of the Century High School property
abutting Circle Drive NE. The City and ISD 535 have created a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to outline the
responsibility of each party in regards to the construction of the proposed pedestrian facilities.
ISD 535 obligations:
o Provide payment to the City within 30 days of invoicing for the actual costs incurred for design and
construction of the facility obligated for the Owner's Property.
o ISD 535 grants to the City a temporary easement(s) of reasonable width for the construction of the proposed
pedestrian facilities.
o ISD 535 agrees to execute a permanent easement for the location of the proposed pedestrian facility.
City's obligations:
o City agrees to construct or have constructed the proposed pedestrian facility
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with ISD
535. ISD 535 has executed the subject agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 133
DATE: 09/18/06
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Public Improvements to Serve
(Lot 2, Block 1, Canal Place) — J6245
ITEM NO.
rN.
Toyota PREPARED BY:
f X M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Ryanna LLC (Owner) & Elcor Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract
J5245 consisting of 'Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Toyota (Lot 2, Block 1, Canal Place)".
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5245,
"Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Toyota (Lot 2, Block 1, Canal Place)".
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
9/18/06
e
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Real Estate -Deed Correction
PREPARED BY:
''rr M. Nigbur
In 1998, the City of Rochester purchased property from Dallas and Brenda Strain for the development of
a wetland replacement/restoration area. The property is located at the intersection of T.H. 14 and 60th
Avenue NW (Section 36, Township 107 North, Range 15 West). It now has been determined that the
legal description of the property contained on the Warranty Deed executed by the Strains has an error.
To rectify this situation, correction deed(s) will need to be created, executed and recorded with the
Olmsted County Recorder. There will be no cost to the City for this transaction.
Wetland restoration
replacement area
a'
rj
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute any deeds or documentation
necessary to correct the legal description of the property transferred to the City of Rochester from Dallas
and Brenda Strain.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
V).
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Establish No Parking Zone, Overland Drive NW from 18 Avenue
PREPAREJBY:
NW to Highway 52
K. D.
With the completion of Overland Drive NW a Resolution establishing Parking Guidelines along that new
stretch of roadway is proposed.
The proposal would create a "No Parking" Zone for both sides of Overland Drive NW from 18'" Avenue
NW to Highway 52.
8
1
I
z
�
NW �--
71)
i
Proposed
!
No Puking
Zone -_
14
IC
ACTION REQUESTED:
/P lYG f
r H„
COUNCIL
lJa Y
Add paragraph 315 to Section B "No Parking Zones" of the Comprehensive Traffic and Parking
Resolutions, to read as follows:
315 Overland Drive NW, on both sides, from 18t" Avenue NW to Highway 52.
0
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
09/18/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
�Z
01
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: (J2261)
PREPARED BY:
Asbestos Abatement and Demolition of Buildings located at 1330
R. Kelm
& 1332 70 Street NW
This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project:
Project:
City Project No: J2261
Asbestos Abatement and Demolition of Buildings located at 1330 & 1332 7`" Street NW, Lot 1 Auditor's
Plat D
Project Background
The roadway connection of 16m Ave NW from Civic Center Drive to 7t" Street NW project was included
in the 2004-2009 Capital Improvement Program (item 13, page 32). The City purchased the property,
land and associated buildings, in anticipation of the roadway project.
The final scope of the roadway project was eventually reduced to constructing only the southerly half in
2004. The northerly half of the project has remained unfinished and the existing property has
deteriorated over time. These buildings located at 1330 & 1332 7`" Street NW have been scheduled for
demolition.
The City authorized McGhie & Betts to complete an environmental Asbestos and Hazardous Material
report on May 01, 2006. The report completed on Aug 30, 2006, states that the removal of asbestos
containing building materials will be required prior to demolition.
The demolition project is to be funded from J2261.
-4
i i t=—
—
'Ii
_
_i
--
\611191 )N Strw1NW
`7-
y
1 �
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on
October 25, 2006 at 11:00 AM.
Note to City Clerk:
Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning September 19, 2006.
DUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6t' '
DATE: E 9/18/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
I
ITEM NO
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
STEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Sale of Fire Station site — 20 Street SE and 3ra
PREPARED BY:
Avenue SE
The City of Rochester City Council approved the sale of various City -owned properties. The parcel located at
the intersection of 20t" Street SE and V Avenue SE was offered to the adjacent property owners for purchase
prior to be offered to the general public. Adjacent property owners Erik K. and Chris Kujath have offered to
purchase the property for $45,000.00. This price is above the anticipated sales price provided Springer
Appraisal Associates, Inc.
Mr. & Mrs. Kujath have signed a Purchase Agreement outlining the details of the sale as follows:
• City agrees to sell and Buyers agree to purchase the property for the purchase price of $45,000.00 to be paid
by the Buyer to the City at the time of closing and the City will provide Buyers with a warranty deed.
• Buyers are responsible for all closing/transfer costs for the conveyance of the property and recording of the
warranty deed.
• Buyers are also responsible for the costs associated with this transaction related to real estate, legal,
environmental, appraisal or other professional services the owner requests or contracts for.
• City shall coordinate removal of encroachments with the abutting neighbors.
• Buyers will be allowed access to the subject parcel from 3'd Avenue SE only.
• City will flag the property boundaries.
Also, State law requires planning agency review and a written report on all city acquisitions or disposals of
interests in public property unless the governing body determines, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote,
that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal
plan. The acquisition or disposal of real property recommended in this RCA has no relationship to the City's
comprehensive municipal plan.
�'[
o- s%'"�*� '3
T'y, !rr+N rx'§ ✓� 5.n Y�yri' ; Ti1
I
o-
s
Yid i� �ytl�
a ,.OY Ajf3 h? {ae'v��'i' #y-4 �}n�'C`w•=� +iy
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Purchase Agreement with Erik J. & Chris Kujath and the
warranty deed for transfer of the property.
2. Adopt, by a two-thirds vote, a second resolution finding that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property
has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9
DATE: 9/1 A
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Merchants Bank, National Association
PR PARED BY:
M. Ni bur
RL
Merchants Bank, National Association, Owner, and the City Staff have had discussions relating to impacts
on the public infrastructure resulting from the development of Owners' Property (Part of SW 1/2 NE'/4,
Section 24-107-14) located in Cascade Township as a commercial development. Owner would like to
proceed with development of the Property even though some of the needed infrastructure is not yet in
place. The City is willing to let Owner proceed with development of the property. The content for a
development agreement has been decided and a document has been created to outline the terms and
conditions of development of the property. The major items covered in the agreement include the following:
• Storm Water Management
• Grading and Drainage
• Transportation Improvements
• Pedestrian Facilities
• Real Estate Dedication & Right of Way transfer
• Alternate Sanitary Sewer Service
• Owner's payment of the development related charges including Storm Water Management, Sanitary
Sewer Availability, Water Availability and Utility Connection.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The Owner has executed the
Development Agreement.
�F yy y
50%Chateau Subdivision
150%Merchants Bank
100% Chateau Subdivisl-- ,s� y*�y11 100%Merck ants Benk
ax
Proportional Share
p Merchants Bank
y
' Approximate area of
County Tur adc
1B Chateau Subdivision
.�Ml�llIL7Y� ..
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Merchants Bank,
National Association for development of their Property.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 9/18/06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM
` O.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works �—
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Contribution Agreement — Erik Kilen and Rochester Brick PREPARED BY:
tE M. Nigbur4W
we,
MEETING /
Staff would offer the following Contribution Agreement for consideration by the Council:
Erik Kilen is the owner of property located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 106 North,
Range 13 West. Rochester Brick, Lessee, intends to operate a portion of the property as a storage yard
that will have an impact on the City's infrastructure. The City requires the Owner/Lessee to execute a
Contribution Agreement for payment of the storm water management charges for the current proposed
development of the property as well as any future charges obligated to the property as development takes
place.
The Owner/Lessee shall provide onsite storm water management facilities to provide pretreatment of the
storm water runoff prior to the waters entering wetlands or Bear Creek. Owner shall also provide payment
of Storm Water Management Plan Area Charges for the property pursuant to the City's Storm Water Utility
Ordinance. The Contribution Agreement also includes a Maintenance and Ownership Agreement outlining
the maintenance and cost responsibilities for the private storm water management facility.
Klan/Rochester Brick Property
subject to Contribution Agreement
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
I;
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Contribution Agreement with Eric
Kilen and Rochester Brick.
Motion
Second
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING R1 /
DATE: 9/18/06
I AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit: Park Place Motors — Lighting in East Frontage PREPARED BY:
Road Right of Way lid M. Nigbur --V�q
Luther Company Limited Partnership, the Owner of the property located at 2720 North Highway 52
(Lots 14, 15 and 16, Allendale Subdivision), has requested the City issue a revocable permit to allow
outdoor lighting to remain in its current location in the right of way of the East Frontage Road of Trunk
Highway 52 abutting the property. The outdoor lighting is installed as shown on the exhibit below.
Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. The
Owner has executed the Revocable Permit, which includes the standard language for revocation and
liability protection for the City.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the revocable permit with Luther Company Limited
Partnership located at 2720 North Highway 52 for the placement of outdoor lighting in the right of way of
the East Frontage Road of Trunk Highway 52.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING n l
DATE.• 09/18/2006
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Water Reclamation Plant
ITEM NO: _� 2
ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2004 Plant Upgrade(J4390)
PREPARED BY:
Change Order No. 5
Lyle J. Zimmerman
Bor-Son Construction is continuing with the work on the Plant Upgrade Project and there have been several changes
required with the work The changes are required to improve the overall quality of the project and to address items
omitted in the contract documents. The largest single change was for over S200,000 involved with site grading
modifications and an increase in the size of the storm retention pond. The following is a list of the changes included
in Change Order No. 5:
1. Modify pressure elements to protect instruments. $ 1,726.00
2. Revise site grading, increase storm pond size, and other drainage improvements. $202,723.00
3. Revise Process Control Local Area Panel A. $ 12,929.00
4. Piping modifications in existing Digesters No. 1 and 2. $ 18,028.00
5. Add limit switch signal for new truck loadout spout. $ 1,235.00
6. Add sample piping connection to thickened digested sludge pipe in loadout area. $ 1,318.00
7. Add wiring for future extension of the intercom system and other modifications. $ 2,265.00
8. Revise vent piping in sump at the intersection of the South Gallery and Tunnel II. S 2,722.00
9. Revise Lower Explosive Limit transmitters in Solids Storage Control Bldg. No.2. $ 3,140.00
10. Miscellaneous electrical and control modifications for heating system. $ 5,705.00
11. Delete insulation on the spray and flushing water piping -$ 10,102.00 Credit
12. Modify the bridge crane bracing in Solids Control Bldg. No.2 to avoid louver. $ 721.00
13. Provide closure strips around the new Gravity Belt discharge to existing sump. $ 1,429.00
14. Miscellaneous electrical and control modification to the new polymer feed system. S 5.665.00
15. Modify pipe supports in the Influent Pump Station. $ 1,570.00
16. Provide high alarm float switch in Solids Storage Tank No. 2 $ 5,557.00
17. Replace copper piping from sump in the Grit Bldg. from 2 to 3 Inch copper pipe. S 3,410.00
18. Add a control relay for high pressure alarm on Gravity Belt Wetwell Pump. $ 977.00
19. Modify Air Scrubber Drain Piping in the Influent Pump Station. $ 2,247.00
Total Change Order No. 4 $263,265.00
No time extension for contract completion is included with these changes.
Original Contract Amount S32,000,000.00
Change Order No. 1 $ 177,927.00
Change Order No. 2 $ 190,337.00
Change Order No. 3 $ 173,435.00
Change Order No. 4 $ 121,237.00
Change Order No. 5 $ 263,265.00
Total Change Orders $ 926,201.00
Revised Contract Amount $32,926,201.00
Council Action Requested:
It is requested that Change Order No. 4 for the 2004 Plant Upgrade Project be approved to increase the contract
amount by $263,265.00.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING lo, /
DATE : 09/18/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO:
onsent Agenda
Water Reclamation Plant
'
ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2004 Plant Expansion (J4390)
PREPARED BY:
Change Order No. 8
Lyle J. Zimmerm
Sheehy Construction Company, the contractor on the 2004 Plant Expansion Project, was asked
to complete various
items of work that were not include in the contract documents but were required to complete the project. The
largest items included a deduct of over $50,000 for some piping insulation and an increase of $37,000 for added wall
insulation and an architectural finish. A summary of the items are listed below:
1. Provide waterproofing and insulation on deck to new Aeration Basins Distribution Channel.
$ 8,431.00
2. Provide isolation valves on non -potable water pipe to outside hose bibs.
$ 2,011.00
3. Change the valves at the hose stations from 4 Type V100 to type V500.
$ 1,359.00
4. Provide a surge suppression chamber on the Primary Scum Pump.
$ 1,912.00
5. Modify handrails on existing Final Clarifiers 3 and 4.
$ 8,154.00
6. Provide baffle plate on 20 inch mixed liquor piping to final clarifier sputter box.
$ 2,877.00
7. Relocate RW piping previously installed through the Elevator Control Room per code.
$ 5,825.00
8. Modify air duct to Primary Clarifier No. 3 to avoid interference in dome.
$10,592.00
9. Change pressure element of Final Scum Pump from 6 to 4 inch including restocking.
$ 998.00
10. Delete insulation on the Flushing and Spray Water Piping systems.
$51,637.00
11. Provide locking door hardware for the Elevator Equipment Room.
$ 680.00
12. Relocate transformer in Blower Building Electrical Room.
$ 7,257.00
13. Provide EIFS system on the east wall of the Aeration Basin Tunnel.
$37,786.00
14. Provide radio transmitters for overhead door operator at the Blower Building.
$ 344.00
Total for Change Order No. 8
$36,589.00
No extension of time will be included with Change Order No. 8
Original Contract Amount
$23,647,578.00
Change Order No. 1 $ 195,204.00
Change Order No. 2 .00 $ 103,113.00
Change Order No. 3 $ 86,369.00
Change Order No. 4 $ 373,000.00
Change Order No. 5 $ 103,810.00
Change Order No. 6 $ 91,702.00
Change Order No. 7 $ 124,555.84
Change Order No. 8 $ 36,589.00
Total Change Orders
$ 1,114,342.84
Revised Contract Amount
$23,761,920.84
Original Substantial Completion Date October 6, 2006
Original Final Completion Date January 4, 2007
Revised Substantial Completion Date December 1, 2006
Rvsed Substantial completion date March 1, 2007
Council Action Reauested:
It is requested that Change Order No. 8 for the 2004 Plant Expansion Project be approved to increase
the contract amount by $36,589.00.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING P�
DATE : 09/18/2006
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO: 2
,onsent Agenda
Rater Reclamation Plant
7
TEM DESCRIPTION: Advertise for Bids
PREPARED BY: 1 /
Engine Generator No. 2 Replacement (Project. J4399)
Lyle J. Zimmerm
The Water Reclamation Plant has two engine generators that utilize methane gas produced as a
byproduct in the treatment process. The value of the methane gas produced is worth over $2000 per day.
The units using the digester gas are used to generate power, thus reducing the plant's electrical costs.
Waste heat is also recovered from the engines to heat the anaerobic digesters and for building heat in the
winter. Two 400 KW units were installed as part of the major expansion project in the early 1980's. One
of the units failed in 2002 and was replaced with a 1000 KW unit in 2003. The second unit is nearing its
useful life and is in need of a major overhaul and is likely to fail in the near future.
When the city utility power is lost during electrical power failures the engine generators are used for
standby power to operate the plant's raw sewage pumps. The older 400 KW generator is too small for
this purpose and will not be capable of utilizing all of the gas produced by the plant as flows and loads
increase.
During the design process it was discovered that a gas scrubbing system will be required for both
generators. Changes in the manufacturing of many consumer products, has resulted during the last
decade, in a large increase in a compounds called siloxanes that end up in the gas produced in anaerobic
digesters. The engineers researched removal systems and have included the installation of one of these
systems with the design of this project.
The replacement of Engine Generator No. 2 was planned for in the Capital Improvements Programs for
2005 and 2006.
Council Action Requested:
It is requested that approval be given to advertise for bids for the replacement of Engine Generator No.2
and the installation of a Siloxane Removal System at the Water Reclamation Plant. (Project J4399)
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 9/18/06
3ENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
onsent Agenda
FIRE
D - 3s
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Approval of architect contract for Station 5
Curt Pronk
The Rochester Fire Department is proceeding with plans to construct Fire Station No.5. We recommend that the City
enter into an architectural design contract with Yaggy Colby Associates for the new station. The Station No. 5 design
will be based on the prototype design Yaggy developed in their work on Station No.3 (2"d Street SW). Yaggy's fee for
the Station 5 contract will be $158,730. The project has a total budget of $2.5 million, exclusive of land acquisition
costs.
Our intent is to design the project this fall/winter for an early spring construction start. We anticipate that the project
will be complete in late 2007. The station site is located immediately east of the current terminus of 281h Street SE
(Shopko South area).
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval to enter into a contract with Yaggy Colby Associates in the amount of $158,730 for the design of Fire Station
5, with the Mayor and Clerk authorized to sign necessary documents.
COUNCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 09/18/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
dh CONSENT AGENDA
ADIv TNISTRaTION
✓— 36-
M DESCRIPTION: Request for Tree Planting Funds/RNeighbors
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
RNeighbors is requesting $5.000 in funding from the City of Rochester to assist in their tree
planting program in Rochester (see attached).
The NeighborWoods planting does benefit the City organization by supplementing the City's annual
tree planting efforts.
I have reviewed this request with the Park Department and we recommend approval
of the request.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion approving the funding request and the appropriation of $5,000 from the 2006
Contingency Account to RNeighbors.
(r �
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by. to:
40
Rochester
Minnesota's
Neighborhood
Resource
Center
Vision
All Rochester
neighborhoods are
known and valued as
great neighborhoods -
where people want to
live, are welcome,
and plan to stay.
Mission
We help to ensure a
great city through
programs supporting
neighbors in
building community
& improving
neighborhoods.
Board of Directors
Jeff Ellerbusch
Paul Groteboer
Bob Nowicki
Mike Podulke
Bob Sixta
Bob Suk
Amy Thompson
Brooke Werneburg
Associates
Natalie Agerter
Anna Kokesch
Jay Maier
Lynette Oehlke-Martin
Jacob Ryg
Christine Schultze
..
►W-
Great
Neighborhoods,
Great
September 15, 2006
Stevan Kvenvold
City Administration
201 4th Street SE
Rochester, MN. 55904
Dear Stevan and Rochester City Council members,
Background
RNeighbors recognizes active citizens and their families are more likely to
thrive in a healthy environment and neighborhood. That is why in 2004,
RNeighbors was a founding member of NeighborWoods in Rochester.
Together with citizens, this partnership works to improve the appearance,
safety, energy efficiency, and value of neighborhoods citywide by planting
boulevard trees. With enthusiastic support from the City Forester,
NeighborWoods in Rochester has trained 75 residents in the Citizen
Forester Program, and planted and maintained over 500 trees throughout
the community.
All of the trees located throughout the City of Rochester make up our urban
forest, which we must work on strengthening and keeping healthy.
NeighborWoods in Rochester knows that the City of Rochester values trees
and we thank you for looking out for our urban forest.
Current Program
Recently RNeighbors joined the Alliance for Community Trees (ACT), a
national organization dedicated to restoring community forests for the
benefit of all people. Recently ACT released some surprising economic
benefits of planting trees.
For every $1 a city invests in trees, it receives benefits of up to $3.74. Some
of these benefits include:
• Each year, an acre of trees absorbs the amount of carbon produced
by driving a car 26,000 miles.
•, Trees can reduce highway noise by 6-10 decibels.
• Streets with little or no shade need to be re -paved twice as often as
those with 30% tree cover.
• Just 3 trees strategically paced around a home can decrease air
Staff conditioning bills by as much as 50%.
Rene Lafflam . Trees reduce the amount of water runoff from rain and clean the
Liana Michelfelder water that does run off, saving billions of dollars otherwise needed
for storm water control and water treatment facilities.
(Continued on reverse side)
■ ■ - x "` ��
a
4% u
-W
Great Neighborhoods, Great City
Scheduled Events
NeighborWoodsT (coincidently the same name that was chosen for our group back in
2004) is one of ACT's programs, dedicated to restoring tree canopy in American cities.
This October is National NeighborWoodsTM month and NeighborWoods in Rochester is
participating by holding a two-day Citizen Forester Training (Oct. 4 and 5) and a
Community Boulevard Planting Event (Oct. 21). Approximately 75 trees will be planted
on three boulevards throughout Rochester; some have diseased trees in them which
will be pulled days before the planting occurs. A flyer that is publicizing the event has
been included with this letter.
This event has been publicized with past Citizen Foresters, corresponding
neighborhood associations and schools. A partnership with the Olmsted County Youth
Commission has been formed and youth will be participating in the planting event, and
encouraging elected officials to plant with them. Local and national grants, totaling
$9,000 were written for this event. Two have pushed back their decision deadlines and
two we haven't made decisions. At this point in time, we're finding ourselves low on
funding. NeighborWoods in Rochester founding partner RPU will be donating $3,000 to
the planting event and donating mulch to put around each planted tree.
Funding Request
As you can see, we have all of the pieces to a successful community planting event.
We are respectfully requesting $5,000 from the City of Rochester to supplement this
already -thriving program. Please contact us if you have any questions. We'd love to
discuss the details of NeighborWoods in Rochester.
Founding NeighborWoods in Rochester partners include
• Committee on Urban Design & Environment (CUDE)
• Maier Forest & Tree
• Rochester City Forester
• Rochester Public Utilities
• RNeighbors
RNeighbors, Executive Director
Ph 507-529-4150
Email rene@rneighbors.org
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 9-18-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEMt N
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
PLANNING
3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment #06-05 was adopted by the
PREPARED BY:
Council on August 21, 2006. The second reading is scheduled for September 18, 2006. The
Phil Wheeler, AICP
attached ordinance makes minor clarifying revisions to the version reviewed at the August
Planning Director
meeting.
September 8, 2006
Fine-toothed review of the LDM amendments related to the Decorah Edge has resulted in three minor revisions
that should be incorporated into the ordinance at its second reading. The first clarifies the effect of the
amendments on currently effective GDP's. It is a change in wording only, with no policy impact.
61.211 Except within the Decorah Edge as defined in Chapter 59, a General Development Plan shall not be
required for any portion of an area for which a general development plan has previously been approved by the
Council, or where the zoning administrator determines that new proposed streets need not continue beyond the
land to be subdivided in order to complete an appropriate street system or to provide access to adjacent property.
Within the Decorah Edge, neEwitiastandi ^^ °.. �? =."�, any General Development Plan
approved prior to October 1, 2006 that has remained in effect in accordance with the provisions of Section 61.216
as of October 1. 2006. shall be exempt from the special protections afforded Edge Support Areas and
Groundwater Supported Wetlands addressed in Chapter 59 Section 6 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances and
from the standards applied to Substantial Land Alterations in Section 62.1105, and shall remain in effect until
October 1. 2011. After October 1. 2011, remaining portions of the General Development Plan and any proposed
subdivision plats for the area of the General Development Plan must be brought into compliance with provisions of
Chapter 59 and of this ordinance applying to the Decorah Edge ...
The second addresses the site capacity calculation process, required of all development in the Edge. The site
capacity calculation depends on density factors provided for most uses in most districts, but not for single family
detached dwellings in some districts and not for any uses in the R-1 and R-Sa districts. The revision below fills
that gap:
61.532 C. Determination of Site Capacity/Permitted Amount of Building:
The site capacity for residential density is determined by calculating the NET BUILDABLE AREA and multiplying
this number by the density factor permitted in the applicable zoning district. For residential uses types for which
density factors are not provided. the density factors for performance residential development shall apply. For the R-
1 and R-Sa Districts, the density factor for performance residential developments applicable in the R-ix District
shall apply....
The third revision is to 62.1105 (P). It changes the term used for the one-year time -of -travel area around
municipal wells from "emergency response zone" to "emergency response area," since the latter phrase is
preferred by the Minnesota Department of Health.
Council Action Needed: Approve the revised ordinance in the action on the second reading.
Attachments: Ordinance amendment text.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. Second by to:
3ENDA SECTION:
ablic Hearings
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATION
MEETING 1
DATE: 09 1 W6
ITEM NO. 1 I
ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2007 Community Development Block Grant Program Requests PREPARED BY:
T. Spaeth
September 11, 2006
NOTE TO COUNCIL: Due to their length a cony of each application request will be provided to the Council under
separate cover and will not be included in the agenda nacket The 2007 appropriation form to be filled out by the
council members is also being sent separately.
This public hearing is a requirement of the 2007 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program
which is federally funded through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Comments on
the proposed program are to be taken at the hearing, but no appropriations will be made, or Council action taken
at this meeting. Following the hearing, the individual appropriation forms are to be filled out the Council
members and are to be submitted to the Administrator's office by September 27, 2006. The council will review
the individual appropriations and is tentatively scheduled to make their decisions on the 2007 CDBG
appropriations at a second public hearing scheduled for October 2, 2006.
At this time we have not received any confirmation from HUD on the exact amount of CDBG funding that the
City will be receiving in 2007, however, we are using an estimate of $630,000. If the funding that is received is
more or less than the $630,000 estimate, the City will need to adjust the amount of appropriations to the 2007
recipients.
The Council members are reminded that all activities that receive a CDBG funding for the 2007 allocation must
meet the following: a National Objective, the City of Rochester's Five Year Consolidated Plan Need, a
Performance Measurement Outcome and spend in a timely manner. A summary of each application request is
attached.
The individual request for CDBG funds have been submitted to the Council separately from the agenda due to
their length. The City also received financial information on each non -governmental applicant in the form of
IRS Form 990. The Form 990's were not copied with the applications since they are fairly lengthy, however,
they are available upon request from the City Administrator's Office.
As we have done in past years this office is strongly recommending that the needed funding for the continuing
of the City's Single Family Rehab program and cost of administration of this program (staffing provided by the
Rochester / Olmsted Planning Department) be provided up front prior to considering other requests The
amount recommended for 2007 is a minimum of $250 000 for the Single Family Rehab Program. The
Rochester / Olmsted PlanningDDepartment is also requesting and we are recommending $35 000 to administer
the overall CDBG overall CDBG program. When these amounts are subtracted from the estimated $630,000, there will be
these amounts are subtracted from the estimated $630,000, there will be
$345 000000 remaining be appropriated.
appropriated.
This office also recommends strong consideration be given to the requests of the Senior Citizen Center and the
City's Park & Recreation Department's requests for Mayo Civic Center improvements. If they are not funded
with CDBG dollars, they will likely have to be funded with property tax dollars.
COUNCIL ACTION: Moron
Second
to:
Page 2 \vR
RCA
September 11, 2006
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Hold and close the public hearing. The applicant should be advised that another hearing is scheduled for
Monday, October 2, 2006 at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers, after which the Council will approve the
appropriation of the 2007 CDBG funds.
II
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearings
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
M DESCRIPTION: Council Initiated request for a public hearing to consider
limitation of the number of dogs that may be kept on a premises
MEETING rb�/
DATE: 9/18/06 `
ITEM NO.
E-
PREPARED BY:
T. SPAETH
At the 6/19/06 COW meeting, Ms. Carole Adamson addressed the Council to request the above mentioned, and also
provided a significant amount of background material for the Council's information and consideration. At the COW
meeting, President Hanson requested that staff provide some additional information related to the history of RCO
106, and any other pertinent information prior to this issue being scheduled for a public hearing.
Information regarding this matter had previously been sent to the Council, and is being sent again separately from
this RCA.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council hold a public hearing for the purpose of taking testimony regarding the issue of limiting the number of
dogs that may be kept on a premises within the City of Rochester.
�Z,,Y � — �' -
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR ITEM
E-2
SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 AGENDA
Mayor & Council
..-.Stevan Kvenvold
Gary Neumann
Terry Spaeth
Terry Adkins
Richard Freese
J� L:4-11170
To: Mayor & Common Council
From:Terry Spaeth'�V��
CC: Stevan Kvenvold, Gary Neumann,
Terry Adkins, Judy Scherr, Roger Peterson
Date: 7/3/2006
Re: Information related to recent dog ownership issue
I am writing in regard to the issue related to the recent request for the Council to
adopt a more restrictive ordinance related to the number of dogs kept on a premises
within the City.
At the 6/19/06 COW meeting, Ms. Carole Adamson addressed the Council to request
the above mentioned, and also provided a significant amount of background material
for the Council's information and consideration. At the COW meeting, President
Hanson requested that I provide some additional information related to the history of
RCO 106, and any other pertinent information prior to this issue being scheduled for
a public hearing.
From my research, it appears RCO 106 was first adopted in 1960, and at that time
the ordinance required licensing of dogs and cats within the City. There was not any
reference to a limitation on the number of animals that could be kept on a premises.
Through the years RCO 106 was amended from time to time regarding the licensing
requirements, add language related to rabies vaccination requirements or
requirements for owners to clean up after their pets. The reference to the ownership
limits didn't come into being until 1997, with the adoption of RCO 106A, which is
presently in effect.
From the period from 1962 to 1992, the City's previous zoning ordinances (# 1296 &
1559) had a definition of a "kennel" which indicated that the keeping of 5 or more
dogs over four months of age was a kennel, and only permitted in non-residential
zoning districts. These ordinances were used to limit the number of dogs kept on a
residential premises.
0 Page 1
The present zoning ordinance adopted in 1992 puts kennels in a category called
'veterinary services and animal specialties', but did not include any unique definition
of a kennel. The staff relies on the dictionary definition of a kennel for enforcement
purposes. The present zoning ordinance may still be used to prevent a kennel as a
use in a zoning district where not permitted, but it has to be proven that a business of
boarding or selling animals was being conducted at a location.
The City Clerk's office has provided data to indicate there are 6575 licensed dogs in
the City at this time. The data was not broke out by the number of owners, but my
estimate is that there are approximately 4700 owners of licensed dogs. Of that
number, 51 owners (I counted those manually) have more than 3 licensed dogs.
This equates to approximately 1.1 % of those owners of licensed dogs.
The City Cleric also sent out a listserve e-mail to the other City Clerk's in Minnesota.
Of those that responded, the information is consistent with what Ms. Adamson had
provided. Most cities have an ownership limitation of either 2 or 3 dogs. Some of the
cities do have "grandfather" provisions in their ordinance.
I am providing several attachments to this memo for the Council's information. They
are as follows:
1. Copy of LMC Animal Control Ordinance Information
2. LMC Model Animal Ordinance Language
3. Example Ordinance Language
4. Copy of information from Michigan State University College of Law on legal issues
related to animal control ordinances.
At the 6119 COW meeting, it was indicated that a public hearing related to this matter
would be held. Please inform staff when you would like this hearing scheduled, so
that adequate public notice can be provided.
0 Page 2
L MC A1'ma, I
small animals or birds was found valid because it did not unreasonably restrict the type of pet
one can own nor unfairly exempt certain organizations from the permit regulations.
4. Providing for the owner's due process rights when an animal is captured and in custody
Due process is an essential consideration in ordinances that allow the city or one of its agents
to impound or destroy an animal. The court will balance four factors in determining whether
the due process requirements have been met:
1. what are the private interests that are affected;
2. what is the risk or erroneous deprivation of that interest;
3. what is the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and
4. what are the government's interests in the matter?
Although it will be discussed in greater detail below, a municipality should give notice to an
owner and an opportunity to request a hearing prior to the destruction of an animal.
Specific Provisions in Animal Control Ordinances
1. Limiting the number of animals per household
When a municipality is drafting an ordinance that, for example, limits the number of dogs per
household, the municipality is not required to consider empirical data. Dog owners
challenged the constitutionality of Sauk Rapids' ordinance limiting the number of dogs per
home without a permit to two; and, allowing permits to be obtained for owning more than
two dogs over the age of six months. The dog owners argued that the ordinance was arbitrary
and capricious and not rationally related to the health, safety and general welfare of the
public because it was not passed based upon empirical studies.
The Court held that empirical data is not necessary to support the adoption of such an
ordinance. The existence of alternative methods for resolving the problem or debates as to
what is the best method for resolving the problems will not be a basis for declaring the
ordinance unconstitutional. Choosing some number arbitrarily also will not render the
ordinance unconstitutional as some number must be selected. Similarly, an ordinance
prohibiting the keeping of more than three adult dogs in any residential home in the city's
residential districts was upheld because it was rationally related to controlling problems of
dog noise and odor as it affects health and general welfare.
2. Barking dogs and other noisy animals
Barking dog ordinances are often challenged under the vagueness doctrine. The most
common problem with barking dog statutes, like other nuisance -like or disturbing the peace
type ordinances, is the ordinance usually lacks some objective standard to indicate what is
unacceptable barking or noise. These statutes come to depend on the personal threshold of
4�,,.,-_ L M G Mock
100.06 Kennels.
Subd. 1 Definition of Kennel. The keeping of three or more dogs on the same premises,
whether owned by the same person or not and for whatever purpose kept, shall constitute
a "kennel;" except that a fresh litter of pups may be kept for a period of three months
before such keeping shall be deemed to be a "kennel."
Subd. 2 Kennel as a Nuisance. Because the keeping of three or more dogs on the same
premises is subject to great abuse, causing discomfort to persons in the area by way of
smell, noise, hazard, and general aesthetic depreciation, the keeping of three or more
dogs on the premises is hereby declared to be a nuisance and no person shall keep or
maintain a kennel within the City.
100.07 Nuisances.
Subd. 1 Habitual Barking. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a dog
which habitually barks or cries. Habitual barking shall be defined as barking for repeated
intervals of at least three minutes with less than one minute of interruption. Such barking
must also be audible off of the owner's or caretaker's premises.
Subd. 2 Damage to Property. It shall be unlawful for any person's dog or other animal to
damage any lawn, garden, or other property, whether or not the owner has knowledge of
the damage. Any animal covered by this subdivision may be impounded as provided in
this Section or a complaint may be issued by anyone aggrieved by an animal under this
Section, against the owner of the animal for prosecution under this Section.
Subd. 3 Cleaning up litter. The owner of any animal or person having the custody or
control of any animal shall be responsible for cleaning up any feces of the animal and
disposing of such feces in a sanitary manner whether on their own property, on the
property of others or on public property. Any person violating this section shall be
punishable by a fine of $10 or five hours of public lands fecal clean-up. Any person who
is found guilty of subsequent violations of this section shall be punished by a fine of at
least $25 but not more than $50.
Subd. 4 Other. Any animals kept contrary to this Section are subject to impoundment as
provided in § 100.05
100.08 Seizure of Animals. Any police officer or animal control officer may enter upon private
property and seize any animal provided that following exist:
A. There is an identified complainant other than the police officer or animal control
officer making a contemporaneous complaint about the animal;
6.08.110 Permitted number of dogs or cats. I Page 1 of 1
�2. Q hol+`Ki e1%C
Rio Vista Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main e Search Privet No Frames
Title 6 ANIMALS
Chapter 6.08 ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS GENERALLY
6.08.110 Permitted number of dogs or cats.
A. Except as otherwise provided herein, it is unlawful for any person to keep, board, or harbor more than
three dogs at any place of residence or on any commercial or industrial premises within the city limits except at a
kennel operating in conformance with the law and regulations of the city.
B. Except as otherwise provided herein, it is unlawful for any person to keep, board, or harbor more than
three cats at any place of residence or on any commercial or industrial premises within the city limits except at a
cattery operating in conformance with the law and regulations of the city.
C. The offspring of any female dog or female cat present at any premises within the city at which the
female dog or female of
is legally kept may be kept at those premises from time of birth until such offspring
reach four months of age, at which time such offspring shall be subject to the numerical limitations upon the
number of dogs and cats contained in this section.
D. The numerical limitations on dogs and cats contained in this section shall not apply to dogs and cats kept
on any premises within the city for which the numerical limitation upon dogs and cats would be violated on the
effective date of this section by the presence of more than three dogs or by the presence of more than three cats if
the following conditions are met by the owner of the dogs or cats kept at the premises:
l . The only dogs and cats which may be kept on the premises after the effective date of this section are
dogs or cats which were present on the premises on the effective date of this section or are the offspring of the
dogs or cats which were born before July 20, 2002;
2. Not later than January 20, 2003, the owner of the dogs or cats have registered each of the animals present
on the premises on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, including their offspring born
before July 20, 2002, with the city using such registration procedures as may be provided for by resolution or
resolutions adopted by the city council and by paying such registration fees for the animals as may be included in
the procedures contained in such resolution or resolutions;
3. The dogs or cats kept on the premises have not been declared to be a public nuisance under the
provisions of this title, either prior to the time of registration of the dog or cat, or at any time thereafter;
4. The dogs or cats kept on the premises have not been declared to be a dangerous animal under the
provisions of this title, either prior to the time of registration of the dog or cat, or at any time thereafter; and
5. The owner of the dogs or cats kept on the premises has not been convicted or, admitted to, or pleaded no
contest to an infraction or misdemeanor based upon a violation of this section prior to the registration of the dogs
or cats. (Ord. 587 § 1 (part), 2002: prior code § 4-138)
ti-.'/--- ].....1__A--Iw ..: , A,:e.., n4_4 A 1 in Fn>znnnr'
Print View
Page 1 of 8
Frint I Close Window
Ordinances for Pet Number Restrictions
Rebecca F. Wisch
Michigan State University College of Law
Publish Date: 2004
Place of Publication: Michigan State University College of Law
Printable Version
Ordinances for Pet Number Restrictions
I. Introduction on Ordinances Regulatig the Number of Pets
H. Municipal Police Power:,_ Inherent Authorit}_to Regulate
III. Restricti4ns_Based on Number
IV. Ordinan�IDistinguishing Type of Residence
V. Number ys. Size
VI. Nuisance Regulation
VII. Criminal ViolationslZoning Ordinance versus Regulatory
VIII. Restrictions ba.. sed on Exotic Pets
IX. Animal.Hoarding
I. Introduction on Ordinances Regulating the Number of Pets
Available from our
Bookstore:
"Conference Proceedings -
April 2004, California
Western School of Law
Available from our
Bookstore:
"Animal Law: Welfare.
Interests and Rights"
By Professor David Favre
(2003)
How many is too many dogs? Who says how many cats you are allowed to keep? If a person has the
space, time, and money to keep many pets, why should he or she be restricted? And, if a person is
deemed to own too many pets, who decides when to take them away? What if those pets are like
family?
On the other side of the coin, one may ask what can I do about the noise of the neighbor's twelve
barking dogs? How do we control the smell from the house that has forty-eight cats? Don't I have a
right to protect my property value?
As the saying goes, there are two sides to every story. The regulation of pet ownership by a
municipality (a city, town, or other incorporated area) theoretically attempts to reconcile the sometimes
conflicting interests of pet owners and property owners. In fact, pet restrictions are some of the most
common exercises of municipal authority. More and more municipalities are enacting regulations on the
number and type of animals a person can keep on his or her property.
Proponents of pet -number restrictions argue that such measures recognize the inherent rights of property
ownership, such as quietude and freedom from nuisance (smells from increased pet excrement, barking,
property damage from marauding pets, etc.). Indeed, recent reports of increased dog bites and maulings
have made pet restrictions increasingly more popular. Pet owners claim that such restrictions do not
necessarily have an impact on the control of nuisances or the safety of people, since it only takes one
dog to bite and one dog barking may be just as annoying as several dogs. Some contend that these
http://www.anirnallaw.info/articles/art_details/print.htm 6/28/2006
Print View Page 2 of 8
restrictions affect the legitimate breeding and training of show dogs as well as dog rescue facilities. In
1999 in Rideland, South Carolina, pet owners helped nix a municipal plan to limit pet ownership to only
two dogs, after a number of concerned pet owners appeared at the City Council meeting. Savannah
Morning News (electronic version), "Council muzzles dog limit ordinance," Feb. 5, 1999
(httn (Iw-wnv savannahmorningneN_s,coin/stories/02.0599/CMNdo sg htnil). The article noted that
objections to the restriction came from as far away as Azores Islands off the coast of Africa. Id.
It is evident that the limitation on the number of pets one can own seems to strike at the heart of basic
property rights and government control over those rights. In an article on a proposed two -dog limitation
change to an existing Enoch, Utah ordinance, residents (some of whom did not even own dogs) balked
at this form of government intrusion. One man quoted for the article stated: "Thus is just the beginning,"
said Joe Marshall, an Enoch resident. "Next they are going to tell you how many horses you can have
and how many kids." The Sprecrrum. com, July 17, 2003, "Enoch proposed pet, animal ordinance
unpopular," by Elizabeth Miller.
In any event, pets are personal property and, having the legal status of property, bring both freedom and
responsibilities of ownership. This overview seeks to outline the most common restrictions on the
number of pets one is allowed to own by exploring restrictions based on sheer number of pets, the type
of dwelling in which the owner resides, nuisance regulations, and criminal penalties stemming from
ordinance violations. In doing so, the relevant caselaw seems to generally show one truth: the power to
regulate aspects of pet ownership has only one real constraint; that of popular opinion.
H. Municipal Police Power: Inherent Authority to Regulate
Courts have noted that the regulation of animals has a long-standing history of constitutionality. See,
State v. Peters, 534 So.2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev. denied 542 So.2d 1334 (F1a.1989); Sentell v.
New Orleans & Carrollton R.R. Co., 166 U.S. 698,17 S.Ct. 693,41 L.Ed. 1169 (1897); Nicchia v. New
York, 254 U.S. 228, 41 S.Ct. 103, 65 L.Ed. 235 (1920). This stems from the property status of animals
under our legal system. There is a legitimate need to regulate all aspects of animal ownership. State and
local government units have the power to regulate matters that concern the health, safety, and general
welfare of their citizens. This power, often termed the "police power," has been upheld with regard to
most matters concerning pets. (For more police power and local laws affecting dogs, generally, click
here).
Pet limitation ordinances fall squarely within this legitimate exercise of police power. In an early case,
the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a borough ordinance that limited the number of licensed dogs one
could own to three. On appeal, a woman who apparently owned up to 39 dogs summarily challenged
the ordinance as unreasonable. The court, however, found that, "[r]easonableness of an ordinance is
ordinarily a question of fact. No facts have here been presented to establish that the ordinance is not
reasonable and we cannot say that it is unreasonable upon its face when there is nothing to show the
conditions that prevail in this particular municipality." Statev. 61 A.2d 213 (N.J.Sup. 1948).
Thus, one challenging such an ordinance has a high burden to meet, even in the absence of any showing
that such an ordinance was necessary.
Challenges that strike at the basic validity of a municipality to regulate the number of dogs one can own
invariably fail. As noted in the previous discussion on municipal police powers, court defer to any
legislative language that evinces an intent to give municipalities authority to regulate animals. This
intent of local units to regulate animals is broadly construed. For instance, in Village of CarM ersville
v. Fiala, 425 N.E.2d 33 (I11.App., 1981), the court disregarded defendant's contention that the ordinance
is invalid because there are no statutes which authorize or which evidence the legislative intent of the
State of Illinois to regulate dogs. Under the Illinois Municipal Code, a municipality may enact any
ordinance that it deems necessary for the promotion of health or the suppression of diseases.
__.__,,....,.-+. ;I / n+htm 6/29/2006
Print View Page 3 of 8
(II1.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 24, pars. 1-2-1, 11-20-5.) A municipality may also "pass and enforce all necessary
police ordinances" (I11.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 24, par. 11-1-1), and may "define, prevent, and abate
nuisances." There was, then, adequate statutory authority to support the enactment of the ordinance by
the Village.
The only real limitation on this power was noted in Village of Carpentersv_ille. "To be a valid exercise of
police power, the legislation must bear a reasonable relationship to the public health, safety, morals,
general welfare or convenience, and the means adopted must constitute a reasonable method to
accomplish such objectives." [Emphasis added] Id. In essence, there must be some rational relationship
between the ends articulated under the ordinance and the operation of the ordinance. This is a low
standard that generally only requires the barest showing of connectedness to the stated goals. A simple
statement that such an ordinance advances the goals of health, safety, and welfare generally suffices.
So what showing must a city make to prove the ordinance has a rational relationship to the preservation
of the legitimate goals of health, safety, and welfare of the community? In People v. Yeo, 103
Mich.App. 418, 302 N.W.2d 883 (1981), Iv. den. 412 Mich. 931 (1982).103 Mich.App. 421, 302
N.W.2d 883, the court observed that a restriction on dog ownership to only two dogs was supported by
the city's claim that such a restriction protected the potential detriment that could result from an
"overabundance" of dogs in residential areas. Id. Indeed, "[d]efendant's argument that conscientious
dog owners would not pose such problems to a residential community does not meet this conclusion.
The township's limited incursion on defendant's already qualified property right does not appear
unreasonable . . . " 103 Mich.App. 423-424, 302 N.W.2d 883.
Finally, it should be noted that such legislative enactments by municipalities are presumed
constitutional. In People_v_ Strobridge, 339 N.W.2d 531,127 Mich.App. 705 (Mich.App. 1983), the
defendant argued that the trial court erred in ruling that the ordinance was a constitutional exercise of the
city's police power.
The full and free use and enjoyment of one's property is a right which may not be restricted by government without
due process of law. A property owner's right to such unrestricted use is, however, subject to reasonable regulation by
the state in the legitimate exercise of its police powers ... Finally, we note the oft -applied rule that legislative
enactments are cloaked with a presumption of constitutionality absent a contrary showing by competent evidence or
facial invalidity.
Id. Plaintiffs challenging regulatory ordinances face an uphill battle when challenging their validity.
These ordinances can take any number of forms, but generally establish firm restrictions on ownership.
"When dealing with municipal ordinances, the municipalities are presumed to be familiar with local
conditions and know the needs of the community and, therefore, a court will not substitute its judgment
for legislative discretion absent a clear and palpable abuse of power." Zageris vv _ Whitehall, 594 N.E.2d
129, (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1991). No recent decision on pet number restrictions seems to rise to this level
of abuse of power, however, and it seems evidence may be difficult to obtain or prove.
III. Restrictions Based on Number
The most common articulation of a pet ownership limitation appears a numerical restriction on the
number of pets one can own. The City of Sausalito, California gives a typical example of a restriction
based on number:
6.04.116 Limitation on number of dogs. Except as provided in Section 6.04,114. it is unlawful for any person to keep
or harbor more than three dogs which are over the age of four months on any lot. premises, dwelling, uilding,
structure, boat or living accommodation. Chapter 6.04 of the Municipal Code.
http_//wu.ci.sausalito.ca,usbusiness/adminlmgr=clerk/a-ord.htm
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/art_details/print.htm 6/28/2006
Print View
Page 4 of 8
Similarly, the City of Roeland Park, Kansas has proposed restrictions on both the number of cats and
dogs to its existing ordinances:
2-123. KEEPING LARGE NUMBERS OF ANIMALS; SPECIAL PERMIT.
(a) No person or household shall own or harbor more than two dogs of six months of age or older or more than one
litter of pups, or more than two cats of more than six months of age or more than one litter of kittens, or engage in the
commercial business of breeding, buying selling, trading, training, or boarding cats or dogs or both cats and dogs,
without having obtained a special permit from the governing body. The fee for such special permit, or any renewal
thereof, shall be $100. Those persons who have received governing body approval to keep more than two dogs or more
than two cats prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the requirement to pay such special
permit fee, or any renewal thereof; provided, however, that this exemption shall no longer apply if a special permit is
suspended or revoked as hereinafter provided.
http.//w%-xv.roelandpark,net/code$/Qrdinanceq/74.2 Qrdmancg-Animof"/o20Con1rol%o20Regulatiogpdf
If challenged, these ordinances typically survive judicial scrutiny. However, as noted in the
introduction, challenges more often arise before the ordinances are adopted or amended. Pet owners
may ask why is two dogs any different than three dogs in terms of interference with other residents
enjoyment of their property? And, what about issues o f breeding and offspring — who decides which
animals stay and which may get forfeited to animal pounds where they face possible euthanasia? It is
clear from a reading of the case law that a municipality "is not required to show affirmatively it enacted
an ordinance based on empirical, factual evidence; rather, the party challenging the ordinance must
demonstrate that there is no rational relationship between the ordinance and a health or safety goal of the
community." State v. Schuler, 1997 WL 76337 Minn.App., 1997 (unpublished opinion). In Schuler, for
example, the court upheld an ordinance that limited the number of dogs and cats one can own at a
residence as a valid exercise of police power. The court found that Schuler failed to offer evidence that
regulating the number of dogs per household was unrelated to the public welfare, as controlling the
problems of dog noise and odor affected the health and general welfare of the community. Id. In
essence, the burden rests on the party challenging the ordinance, regardless of an owner's situation.
IV. Ordinances Distinguishing Type of Residence
Ordinances can also restrict the number of dogs or cats one can own based in part on whether the
property is single-family or multi -family. In Vhllage of Carpertersville, 425 N.E.2d 33, defendant was
charged in the village ordinance code prohibiting the ownership of more than two dogs in a single
family residence.
The ordinance in question, Section 15-23 of the Village Code provides:
'No person shall permit more than two dogs to be or remain in or about any single-family residence, building or lot, or
more than one dog in any single- family unit in any multiple housing building within the Village under his control at
any one time. This section applies only to dogs required to be licensed under this Article or to dogs over the age of
three months.'
Defendant raised an equal protection challenge to the ordinance based on the distinguishing of single-
family residences and single-family units within a multiple housing building. He specifically contended
that such a classification was arbitrary, capricious and a denial of equal protection of the law. In
denying his constitutional claim, the court observed that since no suspect classification was at issue, the
city need only establish a reasonable relationship between the measure and its asserted goals. Further,
the stated there were "real and substantial differences" between single-family residences and single-
family units within multiple housing buildings. The allowance of two dogs in more open, separated
living areas (single-family residences) and fewer than two dogs in more congested, densely concentrated
living areas (single-family units in multiple housing buildings) is a difference which was rationally
related, according to the court, and were, therefore, not violative of equal protection. Id.
1..a_.i�..... _., .._:�,.n.....:_r /--:,.t,.,./..... a..a..a..,__._. t.r rnoinnne
Print View Page 5 of 8
These differences include, but are not limited to, considerations of indoor and outdoor space, density and proximity to
others, noise levels, and structural differences. The evident purpose of the ordinance is to promote interests of health,
safety, general welfare and comfort with an ounce of prevention rather than a pound of cure.
Id. Further, the court stated in dicta that a justification rests in the fact that, "[s]ingle-family residences
are characteristically owned by the persons residing therein, whereas units in multiple housing buildings
are generally rented by occupants who may have somewhat of a less compelling interest in the use and
upkeep of the premises than an owner night." Id. Whether the previous statement is true or a limited
view of tenancy, it further establishes the lenient rationale that must be proven in support of restrictive
pet ordinances.
V. Number vs. Size
Ordinances regulating pet ownership usually regulate based on numerical criteria. An ordinance that
chooses to limit the number of pets to a certain number (i.e., three dogs per household) will be generally
upheld even if it fails to distinguish dogs based on other factors (i.e., size or weight). As noted in one
case,
... the city's ordinance limiting each residence to three dogs and three cats is not unreasonable in light of the potential
detriment to public health, safety and general welfare because of an overabundance of animals in a residential area.
We further find that the constitution does not require a case specific classification such as type of dog, size of dog, or
size of residence. The difficulty in enforcing such an ordinance would, in effect, render the ordinance meaningless.
Gates v. City of Sanford, 566 So.2d 47, (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 1990) 15 Fla. L.
In contrast, municipal restrictions that attempt to regulate based on specific attributes of pets rather than
objective numbers may face difficulty. In City of Marion v. Schoenwald, 631 N.W.2d 213 (S.D.,2001),
the City of Marion passed an ordinance that limited households to four dogs, only two of which could
weigh over 25 pounds. Initially, when the ordinance was challenged at the trial court level, the weight
restriction was struck down. On appeal, however, the Court found that such a restriction could be upheld
simply because South Dakota law permits municipalities broad power to regulate the keeping of dogs,
and thus the weight limitation included in the City's comprehensive pet ordinance was within its
authority.
The impetus behind the ordinance was concerned over problems specifically associated with "large
dogs," such as a greater potential to kill, injure, and intimidate as well as a concern that such dogs when
housed together may develop a "pack mentality," increasing their lethality. This was in addition to the
City's concerns that larger dog equal excessive dog feces, creating unsanitary conditions and foul odors.
Diane Schoenwald and her family resided in Marion and owned three dogs: one shepherd -collie mix
weighing 75 pounds and two golden retrievers weighing 30 pounds and 20 pounds. The city cited her
for the violation and requested that she remove one of the dogs; she refused and the instant action arose.
While the court noted that the City cited no instance where a similar weight restriction for dogs was
upheld, nor did it refer to any animal science authority or veterinary directive to support a weight
threshold for household pets, this was unnecessary. "Empirical evidence, of course, is not required to
sustain an ordinance." Id. However, the court did opine that the weight limit "creates an unproven
distinction between large and small dogs... Weight is a mutable attribute. For some pets, compliance
with the ordinance may fluctuate, depending on health, diet, and age." Id.
Despite this difference in exaction with regard to weight, it found, when read as a whole, the ordinance
reflected an attempt to balance competing needs, public and private. Further, while the court noted
those difficulties with imposing a weight restriction, it also observed that general distinction would be
less definite. "If the City had simply limited households to two large dogs and two small ones, the
ordinance would lack the requirement of definiteness. Distinctions between large and small would be
httn://ww-w.animallaw.info/articles/art details/i)rint.htrn 6/28/2006
Print View
Page 6 of 8
indeterminable." Id. If nothing else, this case seems to underscore the deference courts give to
municipal regulation. Perhaps the only limitation on municipal action is where a municipality words an
ordinance such that pet ownership creates a nuisance per se.
V1. Nuisance Regulation
A review of the relevant caselaw reveals that the only area an owner may strike at a pet limitation
ordinance is where the ordinance is couched in nuisance terms. One case has held that an ordinance that
arbitrarily declares a number of animals a nuisance without establishing nuisance conditions has been
held to be outside of a municipality's powers. In Com. v. Creighton, 639 A.2d 1296 (Pa.Cmwlth.,1994),
a resident of the Borough of Camegie challenged an ordinance limiting the number of cats and/or dogs
which a person could keep within the Borough to a total of five (respondent had approximately 25 cats
whom she testified were former "mousers" strays from area plants that shut down). The ordinance was
enacted under the powers that permit Boroughs to "(5) [t]o prohibit and remove any nuisance, including
but not limited to accumulations of garbage and rubbish ..." and those affecting "the health, safety,
morals, general welfare and cleanliness and the beauty, convenience, comfort and safety of the
borough." Id. While the court first noted that "we are concerned here with living animals, rather than
with the inert junk involved in most nuisance cases ... for our purposes here, the critical consideration
of whether the regulated activity constitutes a nuisance or is otherwise "contrary to the public health,
safety or general welfare is as pertinent to living animals as it is to junk materials." As ordinances under
these provisions are required to affirmatively prove that a nuisance in fact exists, the court invalidated
the pet number ordinance because the law did not indicate why more than five cats or dogs constituted a
nuisance. Id. However, the court went on to analyze the law's validity under the broad power to
regulate the public interest. In doing so, the court found that the Borough Code also failed to articulate
what legitimate public health, safety and welfare goals the Borough sought to advance by enacting this
ordinance. "From the information before us, we simply cannot say whether the Borough ordinance here
is a reasonable means to effectuate a legitimate governmental goal." Id.
Similarly, a 1950 case considered the applicability of an amendment to an ordinance that essentially
outlawed kennels in a Pennsylvania borough. Ownership of more than six dogs was considered a
kennel, and, since kennels were outlawed by the ordinance, it created a de facto limit on the number of
dogs one could own. Commonwealth v. Gardner, 74 Pa. D. & C. 539 (February sessions, 1950) (Court
of Quarter Sessions of Pennsylvania, Montour County).
The defendant in this case had been conducting a beauty parlor in the residential section of the borough
and also maintained a dog kennel for both breeding and boarding purposes. On June 15, 1949, the
plaintiff moved into the residence adjoining the property of defendant, and shortly thereafter,
complained to the borough council about the dogs kept and maintained by defendant. After
investigation, the health officer of the borough concluded that the kennels themselves did not constitute
a nuisance under the existing ordinance (which addressed only noisy dog and unclean conditions).
Thereupon, on September 2, 1949, after plaintiff s continued complaints, the borough council amended
section 5 of the ordinance above quoted by adding thereto the following:
No dog kennels may be kept in the Borough of Danville, and for the purposes of this Ordinance the keeping of more
than six (6) dogs over the age of six (6) months shall be considered the keeping of a dog kennel and shall not be
permitted.
The court then considered whether a municipality may, in the exercise of its general police power for the
health and welfare of the municipality, fix an arbitrary number of dogs to be a nuisance per se. While it
found that the original ordinance was a proper exercise of the police power, the amendment to the
ordinance above quoted, was not provable based on facts at a hearing:
We do not believe that the borough council or the court has the power or the authority to determine that more than a
certain number is a nuisance per se, and less than that number is a nuisance only upon proof of the same being a
Print View
Page 7 of 8
nuisance. in other words, it is our opinion that the borough council, in the exercise of its police power may not
unreasonably and arbitrarily prohibit things which were not nuisances at common law, and their declaration in an
ordinance that a thing is a public nuisance does not make it so, if it is not a nuisance in fact ...
Id. While the case itself still appears to be good law, an undercurrent in the ruling seems not so much
based on questions of municipal police power, but more on curtailing the pursuit of one's livelihood.
However, the court carefully observed that nuisance is a factual question and establishing a nuisance per
se based solely on numbers is a slippery slope. Indeed,
... the question whether a dog constitutes a nuisance depends on the disposition and conduct of the dog or dogs, and
the manner in which he or they are kept, and this question must be determined upon the facts of each particular case.
Three or four dogs of a bad disposition that bark continually, and kept in an unsanitary way would, no doubt, be a
nuisance that could be abated or enjoined, while, on the other hand, seven or eight dogs of a good disposition, that are
not inclined to bark, and that are kept in a sanitary condition and do not annoy the neighborhood, might very well be
held to be not a nuisance which could be abated or enjoined.
Id. It may be worthwhile to note that no case seems to rely on this holding. Rather, the trend has been
to give communities wide latitude in addressing what are deemd local issues.
VIL Criminal Violations/Zoning Ordinance versus Regulatory
Many ordinances provide in their terms that violation results in a criminal violation. While criminal
ordinances are recognized as being within the police power of a municipality, "the exercise of that
Power through the enactment and enforcement of criminal laws is not without limitations." Foster v.
State, 544 S.E.2d 153, 273 Ga. 555, 1 FCDR 942 (2001). Following the general maxim of constitutional
law that any deprivation of liberty through the criminal process requires a strict construction against the
state, such ordinances will be read with their "obvious and natural import of their language." Thus, it
becomes an issue of what the property owner understood to be the requirements under an ordinance.
Such was the case in Foster. In that case, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the defendant's
conviction after the trial court imposed a 12 month suspended sentence and a S 130 fine for keeping
more than four dogs on a lot less than five acres (defendant had eleven dogs at the time on a normal
residential -sized lot). The ordinance contained a provision that contained an exemption ownership of
more than four dogs, provided a permit was obtained. Defendant was ultimately denied a permit, which
did not provide any criteria as to who could obtain a permit. According to the court, "Foster applied for
the permit, which was denied for no reason specified in the statutory provision he is charged with
violating. Under these circumstances, the State is constitutionally barred from seeking to prosecute
Foster on the ground that he violated the Ordinance." Id.
Under zoning restrictions, a person may be able to prove that he or she had a prior "non -conforming"
use that exempts them from prosecution under an ordinance. In Peonle v. 5tro6rid�e,339 N. W.2d 531,
127 Mich.App. 705 (Mich.App. 1983), the defendant was convicted of owning more than three dogs on
a residential property in violation of a local ordinance. On appeal, defendant asserted that the trial court
improperly denied his "nonconforming use" defense; that is, he claimed the ordinance at issue was a
zoning ordinance rather than a regulatory ordinance. Relying on a case that held that prior
nonconforming use (where a person has been using property in a nonconforming way prior to the
adoption of the zoning ordinance), the court found that indeed defendant was entitled to present such a
defense, as he owned the dogs on the property prior to adoption of the ordinance. The record revealed
that defendant applied for a license prior to the issuance of the citation for keeping for more than three
dogs in a residential zoned area. "Since the record reveals that defendant had applied for a license prior
to the issuance of the citation in question, which was denied because the property was zoned residential,
a prior nonconforming use would be a defense to this prosecution." Id. Ultimately, however, the court
found that defendant failed to rebut the presumption of validity of the ordinance.
But merely characterizing an ordinance as a zoning ordinance rather than a regulatory ordinance will not
Print View
suffice. As noted in City of VVhitehalL v�Za e_ris, 1985 Page 8 of 8
son were convicted under a number ll City g WL S5 (Ohio A
pp. 10 residential lot. A munici all ty of Whitehall ordinances for the keepingn)' appellant and her
Police Power. P tY may declare a previous lawful activity" of nine dogs on their
P Once a city adopts such an ordinance, the prior lawful use becomes prohibited and rna
not be continued "under the an unlawful `nuisance" under it
nonco
ng
not declare itself to be a nuisance Ordinance nin its Pr amble -the cd. ow found a reasonable construction the ordinance and the accom an though Whitehall ordinance did
the trial court correctly determinedP ying language suggested it fell within nuisance re n of
measure,legislative that Section 505.13 was a nuisance declaration and n t a ounmg
thereafter be deem d a nuisance. Such legiy may enact slation will declaring that previously la comes within the police power of the legisl till be upheld a wful activity will
municipality.,, Id gamst constitutional challenge if it
VIII. Restrictions based on Exotic Pets
Ordinances can also limit based on whether the animal is domestic or exotic See
Battle Ground, 114 Wash-App. 1062 (2002), where an ordinance restricting
was upheld, even where owners of dangerous dog ordinances were treated less -�oades v. Cii�r of
to dogs, many states have adopted strict laws regarding g the °wnership of exotic pets
and Michigan). These ordinances, like other i g the keeping ofwolf-hybnd dogs. (See ArkaWith nsas
valid exercises of municipal police power. animal control ordinances will generally be upheld as
J�X• Animal Hoarding
Restrictions on pet ownership may often reveal an equally important concern of a co
hoarding.Communities enacting ordinances that restrict the number of pets may
to limit the incidence ofpeople "hoarding" or 'collecting" that of
addiction. (More on this specific topic is co g animal to sans Y also be seeking
P coming soon in a separate paper at the Psychological
In the
interim, please refer to Tufts University Hoarding of Animals Research ConsortiuWeb m
http:/www_tufts_edu/vet/cfa/ho_arding/index_htrul.) (IIARC) website -
Top o_ f page
April 29, 2006
To: Bruce Snyder
City Council
Rochester, MN 55901
From: Carol Adamson
6386 Bandel Lane NW
Rochester, MN 55901
(Phone 280-0157)
Re: City Ordinance 106A.03
Ordinance 106A.03 states: "No person shall keep, maintain or otherwise house more than a total
of eight cats, dogs or ferrets over the age of six months within any household in the City of Rochester
unless authorized by Section 106A.19..........
I am asking the City Council to review this ordinance and amend it to stipulate a limit of no more than
tvdo dogs of the eight cats, dogs, and ferrets permitted.
Rochester is one of the fastest growing cities in Minnesota. We are a very diverse and densely
populated city. Rochester is no longer a rural community. I've read numerous city ordinances, and
there are several pertaining to animals in general, but an overwhelming number pertaining to dogs,
dog bites, barking dogs, dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs, proper enclosure for dogs,
registration for dangerous dogs, procedures of the Animal Control Review Panel regarding dangerous
dogs, these ordinances clearly indicate a recognition of the fact that dogs impact noise, safety, and
sanitation in Rochester.
I know first hand the impact of 6 dogs currently residing on the property directly behind me and
sharing a common lot line. Ordinance 106A.10 on barking dogs states "It shall constitute a nuisance
and be unlawful if any dogs barks, whines, howls, bays, cries, or makes other noises excessively so
as to cause annoyance, disturbance or discomfort to any individual provided that such noise lasts for
a period of more than five minutes continuously or intermittent barking that continues for mare than
me hour and is plainly audible outside the property limits of where the dog is kept........" Neighbors
Y dog owners should not have to tolerate the noise of any more than 2 dogs. I experience daily, the
volume, intensity, and nuisance of 6 dogs barking and howling when they are let out into their fenced
yard. Thirty seconds of that noise at 1:30 in the morning is alarming and annoying even if it doesn't
last 5 minutes or intermittently for an hour. Limiting the ordinance to 2 dogs is far more realistic and
'neighborhood friendly'.
Safety would be dramatically impacted if ownership of dogs was reduced from 8 to 2. 1 know what
it feels like to have my safety threatened. When I am in my backyard weeding my flowers and 6 dogs
are let out of the neighbor's house, barking, charging the fence, jumping up on the fence, sounding
protective and aggressive, I feel annoyance, disturbance and a great deal of DISCOMFORT! The
fence may or may not keep the 6 dogs contained on their lot. I am enclosing a picture showing one
dog outside the fence, even though the fence appears safe. The fence is only an illusion of safety.
No neighbor of dog owners should ever be outnumbered by more than 'two to one' should the dogs
get out. People cannot out run most dogs or adequately protect themselves using their feet, teeth or
fingernails. I recently spoke with Darrell Hildebrandt, Advanced Crime Prevention Specialist at the
Crime Prevention Center, and asked him how I could be proactive and what I could do or have to
protect myself, should the 6 dogs get out. He told me mace is not effective. Pepper spray is not
effective. I asked about getting a residential tazer and Mr. Hildebrandt said that too is not effective.
The only suggestion he could offer, is for me to fence my yard. I contacted GNS Fencing and their
estimate is $8640. That amount of money is not an option for me. I've had the terrifying experience
of being bitten by a dog and also the experience of being jumped and thrown to the ground by a
German Shepard, who had known me for years, but misinterpreted my actions of chasing his owner
,ith a ball during a softball game. Animal behavior is not always predictable. No neighbor of dogs
hould ever have to be outnumbered by dogs, any more than 'two to one'!
Sanitation is an additional significant issue when comparing 2 to 8 dogs. I consulted a vet and
asked how often a dog defecates. Dogs average an output of 2 to 3 feces a day. The chart I have
enclosed shows a difference of somewhere between 84 and 126 feces per week when comparing the
output of 2 dogs to 8. A couple weeks ago, on a warm spring day, I experienced the stench of 3
months accumulation of feces from 6 dogs.
I have researched on the Internet for ordinances, of other cities, pertaining to the number of
dogs. Apple Valley, Duluth and Minneapolis limit ownership to 3 dogs. St Cloud, Richfield, and
Chanhassen limit ownership to 2 dogs.
Please review ordinance 106A.03 and amend it to limit the number of dogs from 8 to ownership of
no more than 2. No neighbor of dogs should have to tolerate the noise, safety, or sanitation impact of
more than 2 dogs! The six dogs living on the lot behind me have forced me to change my activities of
daily living and have impacted my quality of life. Ownership of two dogs, is more `neighborhood
friendly' and consistent with the rapid growth and diversity of big cities. Although the requested
change of ordinance 106A.03 will not affect the 6 dogs living behind me, it is important to fix this now
for future neighbors of dogs.
I will be calling you in a couple days to set up an appointment to meet with you so we can
discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Carol Adamson
I
# of
Doa Feces Comparison Chart
Day Day Day
1 2 3
Day Day Day Day
4 5 6 7
2 dogs X 2 feces 4 8
12
16 20
24 28
8 dogs X 2 feces 16 32
48
64 80
96 112
difference
of
84
at end
of 1
week
2 dogs X 3 feces 6 12 18 24 30 36 42
8 dogs X 3 feces 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
difference of 126 at end of 1 week
Rr,
�=+G^,
�� �..^J
,w. 4. J.+.... �y4w'� � �. w p�ti
,':... �, sbb9t -t $iY s nay. a
i;, �,My *.. �' :.. �lrs" "� i �aY rw 't1�a 1"'�.�`� � .. r �. . ., .. > � �. , � 1 i.r
MEMORANDUM 5
Rochester Police Department
Administration
DATE: May 31, 2006
TO: Stevan Kvenvold
FROM: Roger Peterson
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment of City Ordinance 106A.03
The Minnesota Appellate Court determined that a municipality has the authority to restrict the
number of dogs permitted per residential unit. (Holt, at al., v. City of Sauk Rapids, 1997) Doing so,
however, presents some significant issues in regard to enforcement:
• While specific numbers are not available, it is clear that a large number of City residents
would be affected by any ordinance amendment restricting the number of dogs allowed per
household to two.
• The rationale for restricting the number of animals allowed does not appear to be related to
any issue that is not already addressed in current City Ordinance.
• While we have at times experienced problems associated with certain animals, public
safety concerns have been relatively rare and have not resulted solely from the presence of
more than two dogs at any given location.
• The ordinance, as proposed, would not permit any dog owners to acquire or replace any
dogs in excess of two after enactment of the amendment. However, we have no means to
determine which households currently have more than two dogs and, therefore, have no
means to enforce such an ordinance provision.
• The development and implementation of the means necessary to regulate dog ownership in
the manner proposed would require funding and staff time that is not currently available.
• Any enforcement provision requiring the removal or destruction of companion animals is
inherently volatile in nature and would subject the City and its staff to significant controversy
and potential liability for what would generally be minor ordinance violations.
Given these factors, we do not believe current circumstances warrant amending city ordinance in
the manner suggested.
ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES
the latter three are considered livestock and therefore not permitted in the city due to zoning
regulations.
Subd. 3. It shall be unlawful to own, keep, harbor or maintain any domesticated
animal which is susceptible to. rabies and which has not been vaccinated..with an approved
vaccine. However, the keeping of pigeons shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter
113 and the keeping of chickens shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 113A.
106A.03 Ownership' Limits. Subdivision 1.. No person shall keep, maintain or
otherwise house more than a total of eight cats, dogs or ferrets over the age of six months
within any household in the City of Rochester unless authorized by Section 106A.19. For the
purposes of this section, the term "household" refers to a single family residence or single
unit of a town home, condominium, apartment or comparable structure which is rented,
leased or used as a single unit. This section shall not be construed to limit the ability of
apartment managers, landlords, town home associations or other representatives of property
owners to impose greater restrictions.
\\\ Subd. 2. Any person who owned more than eight cats, dogs or ferrets prior to the
effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted to keep those animals provided that those
animals in that household -were properly licensed pdor.to-the effective date of this ordinance.
No person affected by this subdivision shall be permitted to acquire any additional cats, dogs
or ferrets or to replace any cats, dogs or ferrets in excess of eight except as provided under
106A.19 (breeder's permit) or as specifically authorized by the City Council.
Subd. 3. Any person who moves into the City of Rochester may bring any cats, dogs
or ferrets, not to exceed a total of eight, into the City. The animals must be properly licensed
within 30 days of establishing residence in the City.
Subd. 4. Any person who currently owns cats, dogs or ferrets who becomes a resident
of the City by annexation shall be permitted to keep those animals provided that those
animals are properly licensed within 30 days following approval of the annexation. No person
affected by this subdivision who owns more than eight cats, dogs or ferrets shall be permitted
to acquire any additional cats, dogs or ferrets or to replace any cats, dogs or ferrets in
excess of eight except as provided under 106A.19 (breeder's permit) or as specifically
authorized by the City Council.
Subd. 5. Persons who are not defined as breeders as set forth by 106A.01 may breed
any properly licensed cat, dog or ferret and raise litters. The total number of cats, dogs or
ferrets kept within the household must be reduced to eight within six months of birth.
106A.04 Prohibited Wild Animal. Subdivision 1. It shall be unlawful to keep any wild
January 11, 2002 - Update 314
Re: Rochester City Ordinance 106A.03
Introduction:
Appeal to lower limit of dogs to 2 or 3
Is the ownership of dogs a privilege or a right?
Impact of Dogs - Sound, Security, Sanitation
1. Sound
Dogs bark between 60 and 110 decibels
60 - sewing machine
60 - 85 vacuum cleaner
70 - 80 coffee grinder
70 - 95 garbage disposal
75 - 85 - flush toilet
80 - doorbell
95 - electric drill
105 - snow blower
110 - power saw, leaf blower, car horn
(according to the League of the Hard of Hearing)
2. Security
A fence is an illusion of safety
Conversation with Darrell Hildebrandt
(Advanced Crime Prevention Specialist For Rochester)
Not effective- pepper spray, mace, residential tazer
3. Sanitation
Impact of 3 months of 6 dogs defecating
Dog Feces Comparison Chart
(Veterinarian stated dogs defecate 2 to 3 times a day)
# of dogsMeces
Day
1
Day
2
Day
3
Day
4
Day
5
Day
6
Day
7
2 doas x 2 feces
12
16
20
24
28
3 dogs X 2 feces
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
8 dogs X 2 feces
i6
32
48
64
80
98
112
2 dogs x 3 feces
6
12
18
24
30
38
42
3 dogs X 3 feces
9
18
27
36
45
54
69
8 dogs X 3 feces
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
Comearison of Cities Maximum number of dogs
Albert Lea
2 dogs (2cats)
Apple Valley
3
Austin
3 (cats, dogs & Vietnamese Potbellied pigs)
Bloomington
4
Brooklyn Center
2 dogs (3cats) *(This ordinance is printed at end of outline)
Buffalo
3
Byron
3
Chanhassen
2
Chatfield
2
Duluth
3
Eagan
4
Edina
3
Faribault
3
Golden Valley
3
Inver Grove Heights
3
Mankato
unlimited
Maple Grove
2 (2 dogs, 2 cats, 2 rabbits)
Maplewood
2
Minneapolis
3
Northfield
3
Oronoco
3 pets
Owatonna
2
Plymouth
2 dogs (4 animals total)
Richfield
2
Rochester
8
Shorewood
2
St. Cloud
2
St. Paul
3
St. Peter
3 (cats & dogs total)
Explanation of petition data
Letter of support
Personal experience of impact of 6 Dogs on daily living and quality of life
*Safety is questionable
*I can't protect myself against 6 dogs at large
*Peaceful days of gardening are gone
*I sleep on couch in the living room to avoid 2:00 AM barking ,howling
*Uncertainty of dog behavior, smell of feces....
no celebrations at home including an open house for son's college graduation
*Impact of 6 dogs on sale of my property - tremendous, impact controlled by dog owner
Impact on sale of dog owner's house - zero
summary
Please review ordinance 106A.03 and lower the number of dogs allowed in city limits. The present ordinance sets a
precedent to grandfather in current pet owners. It states: Any person who owned more than eight cats, dogs, or
ferrets prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted to keep those animals provided that those
animals in that household were properly licensed prior to the effective date of this ordinance. No person affected
by this subdivision shall be permitted to acquire any additional cats, dogs, or ferrets or to replace any cats, dogs,
or ferrets, in excess of eight except as provided under 106.19 (breeders permit) or as specifically authorized by
the City Council.
Please carefully consider the question: what is a reasonable number of dogs and a reasonable impact to
expect neighbors to tolerate and endure?
This is an opportunity to move Rochester forward, update Rochester's pet
ordinance and make Rochester a more neighborhood friendly city.
The following is taken from the website for Brooklyn Center:
* Section 1-109, LIMIT ON NUMBER OF CATS AND DOGS. Because the keeping of three (3) or more dogs or four (4)
or more cats in the family dwelling unit or on the family premises is subject to great abuse, causing discomfort to persons
in the area, by way of smell, noise, hazard, and general aesthetic depreciation, and because the irresponsible maintenance
of three (3) or more dogs or four (4) or more cats within a residential area has been the source of a variety of complaints,
no family or family member shall keep, harbor, or have custody of more than two (2) does, or more than three (3) cats, or
a combination of more than five (5) animals exceeding six months of age in the family dwelling unit or on the family
premises. Provided, however, those persons who were issued a private kennel license prior to April 23, 2001, may seek
renewal of their private kennel license as provided in Section 1-105,
This fence appears to keep the six dogs on their lot. It gives the ILLUSION of safety to neighbors.
One dog proved he could escape. The fence was only an illusion of safety.
The privacy fence does NOT
appear in the above picture. It
was recently constructed to make
the townhouses more sellable. The
privacy fence was NOT in the
original plans for the townhouse
development.
Mark Lewis
4-05 14" Ave. NW
Rochester, MN 55901
To the Rochester City Council:
I am writing in response to an appeal to have a Rochester ordinance
changed; which currently allows an owner to have up to eight dogs. I
completely agree that the ordinance needs to be changed, reducing the
number of dogs. Dogs present concerns in the areas of personal safety,
noise, and sanitation. The variances in size and temperament of dogs, as
well as the variances in the level of responsibility of the dog owner, are
factors that need consideration. In a growing city such as Rochester, the
ordinance regarding dogs should limit an owner to a total of two dogs.
There are other growing cities that have already addressed this issue. In
addition, leashes for dogs that are tied in a yard, should not extend in a
manner in which a dog is allowed to reach people walling along the
sidewalk in front of the property.
Through sensible and progressive analysis, I hope an appropriate
change can be applied. Such a change in regards to this area of concern, is
based on advancing the quality of life for the citizenry of Rochester.
Sincerely,
Mark Lewis
bQ /
MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 09-18-06
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
ITEM �Lp
C/�_.�
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-21 to be known as Salem Heights Estates Second. Ron
PREPARED BY:
Yanish is proposing to re -subdivide Outlot C, Salem Heights Estates into four lots for
Theresa Fogarty,
single family development. The property is located between Salem Heights Lane and
Senior Planner
Salem Road SW.
September 13, 2006
planning Department Review.
See attached staff report dated September 13, 2006, recommending approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to recording the final plat:
a. Either remove the area identified as "Drainage Easement' that is currently identifying the "wetland area"
or record (prior to recording the final plat) a private document that can be legally shown as restricting
building in the area.
b. The applicant has recently received approval of a wetland replacement plan with conditions. The
applicant shall submit a completed wetland bank withdrawal application to the Wetlands LGU
Representative for review and approval.
2. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met via: Cash in lieu of land as outlined in the memorandum from
Rochester Park & Recreation Department, dated September 6, 2006.
3. A G/S Impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final
plat, per the September 6, 2006 memorandum from Rochester- Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division.
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a
resolution with findings supporting their decision.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 18, 2006 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester Olmsted Olmsted County Government Center.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by. to:
Nt()
ii,full
PION
fY
I
09/18/06 15:19 FAX 507 287 2275 ROCH-OLM PLANNING DEPT. + CITY CLERK 002
93
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNLNG DEPARTMENT U�,gOOHESTGg.M1ANF /
2122 Campus 6nve SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 559044744
COUNTY OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
�t o
D4d TEDAU GUSS'SP
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner
DATE: September 18, 2006
RE: Final Plat #06-21 to be known as Salem Heights Estates Second. Ron
Yanish is proposing to re -subdivide Outlot C, Salem Heights Estates
Into four lots for single family development. The property is located
between Salem Heights Lane and Salem Road SW.
City Council Meeting: September 18, 2006
Planninq Department Review.
The following condition should be added:
Electric distribution facilities were installed across this parcel when it was platted
as Outlot C, Salem Heights Estates, and an un-developable wetltind. Any
modifications to the distribution system to accommodate the re -subdivision will
have to be done at the expense of the developer.
BUILDING RODE 507/265-8345 - GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPwG 507/2195-8232 - HOUSINGIHRA 507/265-8224
-raw.• PLANNING20NING 507/205-B232 - wELVSEPTIC 507/2B5-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
09/18/06 15:19 FAX 507 287 2275 ROCH-OLM PLANNING DEPT. + CITY CLERK 003
U
r u --
mr plydpr, or drltvrr
DATE: September '18, 2006
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning Dept.
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Dept.
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
280-1579
SUBJECT: Final Plat #06-21, to be known as Salem Heights Estates Second.
Ron Yanish is proposing to re -subdivide Outlot C, Salem Heights
Estates into four lots for single family development. The property is
located between Salem Heights Land and Salem Road.
RPU's Core Services Division review of the above -referenced final plat is complete and
our comments follow:
1. Electric distribution facilities were installed across this parcel when it was platted as
Outlot C, Salem Heights Estates, and an un-developable wetland. Any modifications to
the distribution system to accommodate the re -subdivision will have to be done at the
expense of the developer.
Sincerely,
jb
c. Ron Yanish
Yaggy Colby Associates
d0`J 030N3WV
YICS3NNIW'HIS3HDCIil
:� a FYr3�i 3
=EtgG' S1H913H W31dSf r,a
si =� s3eo3
c
N
p-
k
3
N
O
i
700 ft. Notification Area of
Outlat C Salem Heights Estates
to be known as
Salem Heights Estates Second
Final Plat #05-21
by Ron Yanish
PIN:64.09,41 D68079
Ward: 2 (Marcia Marcoux)
Neighborhood Assoc: None (Baihly Meadows
adjacent to the east)
916106
Olmsted County is not responsible for ommissions or errors contained herein. If discrepancies are found wiUtin this map, please notify
the GIS Division, Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department, 2122 Campus Onve SE, Rochester, MN 55904, (507) 285-8232.
161
0 I
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CC U M T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner
DATE: September 13, 2006
RE: Final Plat #06-21 to be known as Salem Heights Estates Second. Ron
Yanish is proposing to re -subdivide Outlot C, Salem Heights Estates
into four lots for single family development. The property is located
between Salem Heights Lane and Salem Road SW.
City Council Meeting: September 18, 2006
Planning Department Review.,
Applicant/Owner:
Surveyors/Engineers:
Ron Yanish
2633 Superior Drive NW, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works Department
Park and Rec. Department
Rochester Public Utilities —Water Division
Planning Department - GIS/Addressing'Staff
Planning Department- Wetlands LGU Representative
Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Final Plat
2. General Development Plan
3. Location Map
4. Referral Comments (5 letters)
Development Review.
Zoning: The property has two zoning classifications. The
western portion of the property is currently zoned R-1
(Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester
Zoning Map and the eastern portion of the property is
currently zoned R-1x (Mixed Single Family Extra).
Roadways: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this
plat.
Pedestrian Facilities: A Development Agreement has been executed which
addresses the requirement for pedestrian facilities.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
,.,., PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WEL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
Q1J� FAX 5071267-2275
l�a.d. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
V� Final Plat #06-21
Salem Heights Estates Second
September 13, 2006
Drainage:
Wetlands:
Public Utilities:
The grading plan for this final plat has been approved.
A Development Agreement for this property has been
executed and all development is subject to the terms of
the Agreement.
The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps
were reviewed for the presence of wetlands.
A wetland related application has been approved by the
City. The Plan incorporates the approved wetland plan.
The applicant has recently received approval of a
wetland replacement plan with conditions. The
applicant must complete the purchase of wetland
credits in order to comply with the replacement plan.
The water system that serves this area has been
installed.
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 5
spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the
additional parking can be accommodated on the
roadways and most likely within private driveways, as
well.
Disposal of Trees & Brush: As per Section 61.200 of the LDM, any person seeking
approval of a subdivision activity, development activity
or a conditional use permit must indicate whether there
will be burning of brush, trees or debris that will be
cleared as part of the proposed activity. Disposal will be
completed by burning & chipping on site, salvaging and
removing from the property.
Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department
recommends that dedication requirements be met via:
Cash in lieu of land with payment due prior to
recordation of the final plat.
Outlot C Salem Heights 2re was approved 11-1 B-02 but
no dedication was required of the outlot at that time as
the number of dwelling units was unknown and was to
be determined at a later date.
General Development Plan: This property is included within the Salem Heights
General Development Plan (GDP).
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)".
Page 3
Final Plat #06-21
Salem Heights Estates Second
September 13, 2006
Final Plat Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Planning staff has reviewed this final plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The staff recommends approval of this final plat, as
submitted, with the following conditions / modifications:
1. Prior to recording the final plat:
a. Either remove the area identified as "Drainage Easement' that is currently
identifying the "wetland area" or record (prior to recording the final plat) a
private document that can be legally shown as restricting building in the area.
b. The applicant has recently received approval of a wetland replacement plan
with conditions. The applicant shall submit a completed wetland bank
withdrawal application to the Wetlands LGU Representative for review and
approval.
2. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met via: Cash in lieu of land as outlined
in the memorandum from Rochester Park & Recreation Department, dated
September 6, 2006.
3. A GIS Impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid
prior to recording the final plat, per the September 6, 2006 memorandum from
Rochester- Olmsted Planning Department - G/S Division.
Note to Developer
• A Development Agreement as been executed for this Property, and development is
subject to the terms of the Agreement.
• If the wetland area is removed from the final plat, the charges/fees applicable to the
development shall include this area as buildable.
l
1ZOCHESTER
Hzfl�
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
Rochester, MN 55904 WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
FROM: Mark E. Baker Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
DATE: 9/12/06
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #06-21, for Salem
Heights Estates Second (reolat of Outlot `C', Salem Heights Estates). The following are Public
Works comments on this request:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this Property and all development is
subject to the terms of the Agreement.
2. The wetland should be labeled on the plat as "Wetlands" and not as a Drainage Easement.
Public Works staff has discussed this item with the Owner's consultant.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are included in the
Development Agreement and any remaining applicable SAC, WAC, Storm, or Pedestriar
Path charges that were not paid at the time Salem Heights Estates was platred will be due
within 30 days of invoicing after Final Plat approval, or as otherwise specified in the
Agreement.
C:\Documents and Settings\plastostLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0UC1 C\FP06-21 Salem Heights Estates
Second.doc
& s`t'eOp
Al
- ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION
Rochester, MA DEPARTMENT
DATE: September 6, 2006
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Final Plat #06-21
Salem Heights Est 2nd
Number of dwelling units ............................................. 4 units
Densityfactor............................................................ .0244
Dedication............................................................... .10 a
Fair market value of land ............................................. $25,0001 a
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via: Cash in lieu in the amount of $2,500 (.10 a X $25,000 / acre) with
payment due prior to recordation of the final plat.
Outlot C Salem Heights 2'a was approved 11-18-2002 but no dedication was required of
the outlot at that time as the number of dwelling units was unknown and was to be
determined at a later date.
O:IPARK DEDICATIONV20061SW 28971SALEM HGTHS EST 2.DOC
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROOM 150
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6164
FAX 507-281-6165
DSTOTZ@C I. ROCHESTER. MN. US
rpmu
Alr pirJrrr, wr A.lrvrr
September 7, 2006
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Final Plat 406-21 by Ron Yanish to be known as Salem Heights Estates Second.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and we have no objections.
The water system that serves this area has been installed.
Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
0644 p
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
Rochester -Olmsted Planning —apartment
GIS/Addressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: September 6, 2006
TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster
FROM: Randy Growden
GIS/Addressing Staff
Rochester -Olmsted County
Planning Department
CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle
RE: SALEM HEIGHTS ESTATES SECOND
FINAL PLAT # 06-21
Phone: (507)285-8232
Fax: (507)287-2275
UPON REVIEW OF THIS PLAT THE FOLLOWING FEES ARE REQUIRED TO BE
PAID BEFORE THE PLAT CAN BE ADDRESSED.
E911 ADDRESSING FEE: $ 320.00 (4 LOTS/ADDRESSES)
GIS IMPACT FEE: $ 460.00 ( 4 LOTS/OUTLOTS)
Notes: 1. Additional E911 Addressing fees may be required upon Site Plan review.
2. Final Plats must be approved and the above fees paid before application requests for
addressing can be submitted to the E911 Addressing Staff — Rochester/Olmsted
A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues:
1. Upon review of SALEM HEIGHTS ESTATES SECOND the GIS / Addressing staff has
found no issues to bring forth at this time.
el
I�p
WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Application Number: Final Plat #06-21, to be known as Salem Heights Estates
Second
❑ No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey
Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is
responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the
information as part of this application.
A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the
Planning Department.
A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -Loss,
Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department.
® A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan
incorporates the approved wetland plan.
No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to
the location in the landscape, the property owner should examine the site for
wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands.
® Other or Explanation:
The applicant has recently received approval of a wetland replacement plan
with conditions. The applicant must complete the purchase of wetland
credits in order to comply with the replacement plan.
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING t21
9-18-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING
El- Ll
TEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-22 to be known as The Gardens North Subdivision.
PREPARED BY:
the Gardens Manufactured Home Communitj, LLC is proposing to re -plat land located
Mitzi A. Baker,
east of St. Bridget Road SE, south of the 40 St. SE extension, into seven lots and four
Senior Planner
Outlots. The subdivision includes approx. 26.62 acres. The Applicant is also requesting
approval of a Substantial Land Alteration permit to fill the property with more than 100,000
c.y. of material, and change grades by more than 10 feet through a portion of the property.
September 14, 2006
Final Plat #06-22 for The Gardens North Subdivision was scheduled for a public hearing on Monday September 18, 2006 with
the City Council. From the time the application is filed, we have six working days to determine whether the application is
complete and "accepted". This particular application was filed without the required grading plan approval, and does not
comply with the approved GDP and GDP conditions. Planning determined that this application is incomplete, and notified the
applicant and consultant that the application has not been accepted. This item should be pulled off the agenda for Monday.
Since the notices were sent and hearing published, please make an announcement that the item has been pulled off the
agenda.
Council Action Needed:
1. Remove this item from the agenda.
Distribution:
1. City Attorney
2. Planning Department File
3. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on September 18, 2006, in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mofion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 6
3
DATE 9-18-06
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARING
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
ITEM.�
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #06-08 by Rochester Area Family Y. The
PREPARED BY:
application is proposing to vacate approximately 671/z feet of the 15 foot wide
Mitzi A. Baker,
alley right-of-way located between Block 106 and Block 107, Willson's
Senior Planner
Addition. The property is located west of 1" Avenue SW and north the
existing Rochester Area Family Y facility.
September 13, 2006
Recommendation:
Ms. Wiesner moved to approve Vacation Petition #08-06, as petitioned. Ms. Rivas seconded the
motion. The motion carried 9-0.
Council Action Needed:
Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should
instruct the City
Attorney to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached
3. Planning Department GIs Division
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on September
18, 2006, in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE,
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
OF=
6STSW
o rTe -At L
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
c o u N T Y OF www.olmstedcDunty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: August 17, 2006
r
�Ihl•rrA�q��r4
�a ...4mg.CSiR:�I
�sm�p1iL� n
I�ti�\IN��i
RE: Vacation Petition #06-08 by Rochester Area Family Y. The application is
proposing to vacate approximately 67 1/2 feet of the 15 foot wide alley
right-of-way located between Block 106 and Block 107, Willson's
Addition. The property is located west of tat Avenue SW and north the
existing Rochester Area Family Y facility.
Plannina Department Review:
Petitioner(s):
Reason to Vacate:
Report Attachments:
Staff Recommendation:
Rochester Area Family Y
709 SW First Ave
Rochester, MN 55902
Alley access no longer needed.,
1. Location Map
No referral agencies object to vacating the right-of-way as petitioned. The Fire Department was
contacted to inquire about access for emergency vehicles (i.e. fire), to the buildings located south
of 61h St. SW, west of Vt Ave. SW. According to Rochester Public Works, there is another public
access easement lying just south of the former Macco building (to the north of the proposed
vacation).
Staff recommends approval to vacate the right-of-way, as petitioned.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
..w.e.w..
PLANNINGlZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
-
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
�v
m
Z
LL'
6
c
PARCEL 3A
� N
Q
n
LL
{�
L
130.33
N89'58'33"E
BOCK 10
1
N
9'58'3
"E
15.00
N8
2.00
'58'3
�,..,�a:
EAw
ou?�*
'
co
0
11,81 VAS ' ED
Or"
oyt:
C3
N ?TH STREET SW
15.00
589'58'3
BLOCK 100
r.
RECEIVED
JUL 1 ] 2006
W
W
Q
121
August 14 2006
City Planning and Zoning
2122 Campus Drive SE Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-474442
I am writing in regards to Vacation Petition #l0"8 by the Rochester Family Y.
If this is the alley that is directly south of the Boxing Gym building, and on the North end
of the Y parking lot, I am very much against it because that is the only access fire trucks
have to the rear of the building, 114 6ei St SW. The parking lot east of this building is
private property so there is not access to the rear of the building.
If it is the alley that is on the south end of the Y parking lot I do not have a problem with
it.
I can be reached by e-mail: wstillmangeoloradofinance.com or phone 289 8981.
Thank you
Wayne Stillman
1.241 SO Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
V'
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning
Commission held on Wednesday, August 23, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board
Chambers of the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN.
Members Present: Mr. Jay Burke, Chair; Ms. Leslie Rivas, Vice Chair; Mr. Jesse
Wallace; Mr. Paul Ohly; Ms. Lisa Wiesner; Mr. Vince Barry; Mr. Robert Haeussinger;
Mr. John McGuine; and Mr. Gerald Pestka
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Ms. Mitzi A. Baker and Ms. Jennifer Garness
Other City Staff Present: Ms. Pat Alfredson, City Attorney
SET ORDER OF AGENDA:
Mr. Haeussinger moved to approve the agenda, as written. Ms. Rivas seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve the following consent items. Ms. Rivas
seconded the motion.
August 9, 2006 minutes
�r Vacation Petition #06-08 by Rochester Area Family Y
• Vacation Petition #06-10 by Mayo Clinic Rochester
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Ms. Baker noted that the vacation petitions were acted upon under the consent agenda
to the audience.
Center Street.
r
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
q�
MEETING '0
DATE: 9-18-06
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annual Review of the Rural Service District Parcels
PREPARED BY:
BrentSvenby,
Senior Planner
September 13, 2006
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Rochester Code of Ordinances (Number 1466) as amended review of the Urban Rural Service Districts within the
City of Rochester. The Rural Service District classification reduces the city portion of the mill rate to 17% of that for
lands in the Urban Service District. Properties classified as Rural Service District are largely undeveloped and do not
make use of many of the municipal services; therefore, the municipal tax levy on the property is reduced. In order to
qualify for a Rural Service District classification, the property must:
1. be rural in character,
2. not be developed for commercial, industrial, or urban residential purposes
3. be part of a consolidated area five (5) acres in size, and
4. be either unused, or used for agricultural, forest, recreational, or quarrying purposes.
Mr. Haeussinger moved to approve the annual review of Rural Service District parcels at their September 13,
2006 meeting. Mr. McGuine seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Additions:
There are 13 properties to be added to the Rural Service District. These properties have been annexed since last
year's review and they meet the above listed criteria. They total approximately 409.53 acres and are found in "List A"
of the attached staff report.
Deletions:
Properties that do not meet the Rural Service District qualification should be added to the Urban Service District. The
properties to be deleted appear on "List B" and "List C" of the attached staff report. "List B" includes lands that are less
than 5 acres in size and or platted as individual lots.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated, September 6, 2006.
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to designate the lands listed in "List A" of the attached staff report as Rural Service
District, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for adoption.
2. The Council should vote to suspend the rules and have the second reading of this ordinance on September
18, 2006.
3. If the Council wishes to transfer the parcels listed in "List B" to the Urban Service
District, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for adoption.
Attachments:
1. Staff report dated September 6, 2006.
l
Distribution: '�
1. City Administrator ; )pfl''
2. City Clerk +
3. City Attorney: Legal Descriptions Attached
4. Planning Department File
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by:
51
\49
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CC U NTT OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner
DATE: September 6, 2006
RE: Annual Review of the Rural Service District (RSD) Parcels
�anr I4pr
,
The Rochester Code of Ordinances (#1466) requires an annual review of the Urban and Rural
Service property tax districts within the City of Rochester. The City Planning and Zoning
Commission conducts this review and recommends to the Common Council any changes that
may be necessary. The required hearing on additions to the RSD will be scheduled for
September 18, 2006, before the City Council. A 30-day notification is required for the hearing.
Properties classified as a Rural Service District are largely undeveloped and do not make use of
many of the municipal services; therefore, the municipal tax levy on the property is reduced. In
order to qualify for a RSD classification, a property must:
1. be rural in character;
2. not be developed for commercial, industrial or urban residential purposes;
3. be part of a consolidated area over five (5) acres in size; and
4, be either unused or used for agricultural, forest, recreational, nursery or quarrying purposes.
Ordinance No. 1635 states that the Common Council may determine that certain platted pieces
of land may remain eligible for RSD status. The Council must determine that these properties
are still rural in character and not developed for urban residential, commercial or industrial
purposes.
Additions to the RSD
List "A" includes the tracts of undeveloped lands annexed into the City since the last update to
the Rural Service District list in 2005 until June 2006.
Deletions from the RSD
List "B" includes those tracts of land that because of their size (less than five acres), do not
qualify for inclusion in the Rural Service District and should be removed. This list also includes
parcels that no longer exist due to subdivision.
List "C" includes tracts of land that are owned by the public or other tax-exempt entities. These
lands should be removed from the RSD because they pay no property taxes.
Attachments
1. List of properties in each category
2. Maps of properties to be added to the RSD
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINCWAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
.•
PLANNINGrZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYlAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
LIST "A" ANNEXATIONS
ACRES
LOCATION & OWNER
MAP
PIN
Located south of 48 Street NE and west of 22 no Avenue NE in part of the
56.79
SE 114 of the SE 1/4, Section 13, Cascade Township and in the SW 1/4 of
1
75845
Section 18, Haverhill Township owned by PAKS Properties IV, LLC.
Located east of TH 63, south of 48 St. NE and north of Morris Hills North
2
34.98
in a part of the SE 1/4 of Section 13, Haverhill Township owned by Arcon
75725
Development, Inc.
Located along the south side of Viola Road and the along the west side of
3
50728
9.95
East Circle Drive in a part of the East Y2 of the NW Y4 of Section 30,
50730
Haverhill Township owned Think Federal Credit Union.
33610
33615
Located along the south side of 55 Street NW and west of Georgetown
4
57646
22.53
Town Homes in a part of the NW 1/4 of the NW Y4 of Section 15 Cascade
Township owned by Hunter Family of Rochester, LLC.
7.85
Located south of 55 Street NW and west of Georgetown Town Homes in
5
52879
a part of the NW 1/4 of the NW Y4 of Section 15 Cascade Township owned
by Charles Dewitz.
37.73
Located along the south side of 55 Street NW and along the west side of
6
57178
181" Avenue NW in a part of the NW 1/ of the NW Y4 of Section 15
Cascade Township owned by Tony Lund Etal Trustees.
26.49
Located along the east side of West Circle Drive and north of 19 Street
7
52302
NW located in a part of the E 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the Section 29 Cascade
Township owned by Irene Kuehn.
78.35
Located along the east side of West Circle Drive and along the north side
8
52299
of 19"' Street NW located in a part of the W 1/2 of the NW Y4 of Section 28
Cascade Township owned by Irene Kuehn.
50.66
Located along the east side of the West Circle Drive and along the south
g
56201
side of 19'" Street NW located in a part of the W 1/z of the SW 1/4 of Section
28 Cascade Township owned by James and Kathryn Whiting.
50.41
Located east of West Circle Drive and south of 19 Street NW and north
10
50833
of the rail road track located in a part of the E 1/2 of the SW Y4 of Section 28
Cascade Township owned by John Remick.
7.80
Located along the south side of the 19 Street NW and west of the
11
50840
Rochester Athletic Club located in a part of the SW 1/4 of Section 28
Cascade Township owned by Club West LLC.
7,gp
Located north of Pinewood Road SE and south of 22"Q Street SE located
12
75976
in a part of SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section Marion Township owned b
�hv
Quinstar Limited Partnership.
18.09
Located north of Pinewood Road SE and south of 22" Street SE in a part
113
35933
SE 1/4 of the NE 14 of Section 18 Marion Township owned by Breck
Gruenke.
LIST "B" - PARCELS TO BE REMOVED FROM RSD LIST
< 5 ACRES or DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR RSD
PIN k
OWNER
075368
Arcon Development Inc.
075369
Arcon Development Inc.
075370
Arcon Development Inc.
075371
Arcon Development Inc.
075372
Arcon Development Inc.
075373
Arcon Development Inc.
075374
Arcon Development Inc.
075375
Arcon Development Inc.
075076
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075077
Ion Wesley Investments Inc
075078
Ion Wesley Investments Inc
075079
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075080
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075081
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075082
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075083
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075084
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075085
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075086
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075087
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075088
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075089
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075090
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075091
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075092
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075093
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075094
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075095
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075096
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075097
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075098
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075099
Jon Wesley Investments Inc
075456
Joe] Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075458
Joe] Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075459
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075460
Joel Bi elow & Sons Ente rise
075461
Joel Bi e]ow &Sons Ente rise
075462
Joel Bigelow & Sons Ente rise
03
075463
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075464
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075465
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075466
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075467
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075468
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075469
Joel Bi.-elow & Sons Enterprise
075470
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075471
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075472
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075473
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075474
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075475
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075476
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075477
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075478
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075479
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075480
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075481
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075482
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075483
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075484
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075485
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075486
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075487
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075488
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075489
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075490
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075491
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075492
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075493
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075494
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075495
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075496
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075497
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075498
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075499
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075500
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075501
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075502
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075503
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075504
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075505
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075506
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075507
Joel Bigelow & Sons ntvrprise
075508
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075509
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075510
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075511
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075512
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
075513
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprise
LIST "C" - PARCELS TO BE REMOVED FROM RSD LIST
TAX EXEMPT LANDS
PIN#
OWNER
076034
State of MN
070115
State of MN
076005
City of Rochester
052813
City of Rochester
B A�. JEXATION CERTIFIC '.TE
llp�RT OF W1/2 OF SW1/4 S' ), T107N, R13W
PART OF SE1/4 OF SE1/4, SEC.1`3, T107N, R14W
OLMSTED COUNTY, MINNESOTA
0 250 500 1000 M A P # l
SCALE IN FEET
PROJECT NUMBER
B541
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR
ENGINEERS- ARCHTECTS
as+lwm.mmn c.aowc
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRER SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
DATE OF SURVEY
02/09/05
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DRAFTED BY
JRP
717 THIRD AVE. S.E.
ROCHESTER, MN
SURVEYED BY
YCA
PETER G. OETLIKER LICENSE EXPIRES 613WOB
507-285-6464
FAX: 507.2BB-5058
SURVEYED FOR
41887
E-MAIL INFOIp YAGCY.CO
DICK ARGUE
DATE NI IMRFR
ANNEXATION "1AP
PART OF SE ,
-SEC.13, T107N, R14W
OLMSTED COUNTY, MINNESOTA
0 250 500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
— — — — DENOTES ROCHESTER CITY UMTT AS OF 12/01/2004
® DENOTES ANNEXATION AREA
I RLDnr 7
NORTH
7
RN 1f C7.
{ i
Y
UNPLATTED
MAP #2
/
W
ti
COLD
J
f
? 24
a� UNPLATTED
r'
W,
7.
VIKIN
Z3
17
r
: i
4 w
4
L
J 4
a
to V.N 3
i i
3
B,
a
elf Iy3iN
'
f �n
7
z
I
J
Il 9
PROJECT NUMBER
8857
1HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR
ENGINEERS- ARCHITECTS
B837--'-p02d.I
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
DATE Of SURVEY D4/21 /OS
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DRAFTED BY
MJH
-
717THIRDAVE. S.E.
ROCHESTER, MN
YCA
PETER G. OETUKER LICENSE EXPIRES 6/3D106
507-288-6464
SURVEYED BY
FAX: 507-288-505B
SURVEYED FOR
41857
E-MAIL INFOCYAGOY.CC
ANNEXATIO MAP �7
PART OF E 1/2 Or ;;-..W 1/41 MAP 03
-1.7
SEC. 30, T107N, R13W
I OLMSTED COUNTY, MINNESOTA
O 200 400 800
DENOTES CITY LIMITS AS OF JAW 2006
SCALE IN FEET i 5o'j2
+ s e s e 1s 6 e PF I- r 1 �7O�ULv
7 s f .� . '1N •� 3
N f n ]D so el ' 2 wJ W T \�
4 " n y L.w CENTURY
le e1R16i a 1 � 6
✓. an
HIGH
11 Is u u e LLL f
" f N` F L' SCHOOL 1p e e r
,,I s Lu t
it 0
1s
s
14
u
E. 16,
„'
a
I] fl 1e
15 16
N tI isLy 11
to
7 ° 7
s
s
e 1 CEN Tf4.
30
� / 1
6 I dW.T O
s
2
s /
17 ,e 11 IS la 11 le e e
iIL"ILI H LLH �
PROJECT NUMBER _ 9405 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR ENGINEERS- ARCHITECTS
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DATE DF SURVLY 07 /10/06 DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT 1 AM A DULY SURVEYORS • PLANNERS .
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA,
DRAFTED BY MJH
717 THIRD AVE. S.E
ROCHESfER. MN
SURVEYED BY PETER G. OE7LIKER LICENSE EXPIRES 6f30/D6 507-235-64b1
SURVEYED FOR FAX 507-28&50SB • a
L-ip Numbers 7-11 03
\0 l..ap Numbers 12-13
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 09/18/01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY CLERK
ITEM DESCRIPTION: SOUND AMPLIFICATION REQUESTS PREPARED BY:
Bethany Gerber
The following SOUND AMPLIFICATION REQUESTS 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.
WAIVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE TILL 10:30 PM
John Marshall High School
1510 14' Street NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Homecoming Parade 09/29/06 3:45 PM to 4:30 PM
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the sound amplification permits as presented
rA
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to:
JOHN MARSILALL HOMECOMING PARADE
Sept 29, 2006
3:45 pm
Start: Goose Egg Park(by Northrup Building) on 2"d Ave &: 91h St NW
Route: North on 2°d Ave
West on 14`h St. to JM parking Lot
i,ED--11-2005 10:212 CITY CLERK
,-J,P?LIC4TI0N4 3a
".V uNCIL DATE:
q ) P.0 lL�l
DATERECEIVED
RECEIPTN71MBEP f`L)�3Q3C'i
AMOUNT PAID >? n =5
APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATIONPERMIT
;)ATE OF APPLICATION:
. 4PPLICr1TION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN 9DV ANCE OF EVENT TO:
1=I'RY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 e ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904
APPLICANT INFORMATION
2=,Dr OF APPLICANT/RESPONSIBLE PARTY:
1,i-',I'E OF BIRTH:
i i'.OhiE TELEPHONE NL ER S (� R' I'iS�' SIn'�Q- CELLPHONE
kME OF ORGAN, IZATION: 1U�1t 1 YarC1,n1' ��tn?raf)
0-4:1RESS:
:C-NTA.CT PERSO:
C biE ADDRESS:
1.4TEOF13aT-H
IF,LEPHONEh1U_NIBER: CELL PHONE NUMBER: 'SO (�' L�-COI"aWi
:'Ii:?u?OSE OF EVENT:
ATE(S) OF EVENT: G /� lD DAY(S) OF WEEK: ; \
C1-ATION OF SPECIAL EVENT:
73CPIPTION OF ENi'ERTAlNhSWT TO BE PROVIDED:
11-202S 10'E1 CITY CLEP.K
A'XiMU ✓c N JN BER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED
0 BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY
O'W WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED
:7ND TII✓iE:
P.03
ATTACH A SKETCH, SITE PLAN, STAGE PLOT OR OTHER DESCRI31 ION OF THE LAND AND PREMISES TO .17
USED FOR TTIE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT. BE SPECIFIC AS TO T-AE PLACE -VENT OF
SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND TIME DIRCTION THE SOUND WII,L TRAVEL.
PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES AND ARRANTGEMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE
i kNDLING OF FOOD, MEDICAL NEEDS, SANITATION, FIRE SERVICES, GAR3AGE DISPOS? T , AND
SECURITY INCLUDING CROWD CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL Oise Additional Sheer 1fAlecessary))
ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM'rrIE CHEF OF POLICE OR TIE CHIEFS DESIGNEE STATING
TFI AT, IN T BE Cri1EF'S OPINION, APPROPRLATE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN IV ADE TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE SECURITY AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH T-FM PERMIT IS SOUGHT
INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS.
PROVIDE THE 14BANS AND METHODS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO PREVENT NOISE FROM THE
EVENT FROM UNREASONABLY DISTURBING THOSE PERSONS WHO LIVE OR WORK IN THE VICINITY OF
Try EVENT. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary)
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
N4,5
DATE: 9/18/06
4
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
SOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
G
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
TERRY L. DKINS
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
a) An Ordinance Creating And Enacting Sections 59.15 And 59.16, And Amending And Reenacting
{� Sections 59.01, 59.02, 59.05, 59.06, 59.07, 59.08, 59.09, 59.10, 59.11, 59.12, 59.13 and 59.14 Of The
Rochester Code Of Ordinances, Relating To Wetland Conservation And Regulation.
i,
i b) An Ordinance Amending The Flood Prone District Boundaries Relating To A Portion Of The Southeast
` Branch Of Willow Creek Located South Of 48'h Street S.W., West Of Highway 63 And East of 110
I Avenue S.W.
c) An Ordinance Amending And Reenacting Sections 60.338, 61.211, 61.214, 61.215, 61.216, 61.531,
t 61,532, 61.533, 62.1105 And Appendix B Of Rochester Zoning Ordinance And Land Development
Manual, All Parts Of The Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating To Development Occurring On Or
Near The Decorah -Platteville -Glenwood Geological Formations.
G.4. MISCELLANEOUS
�� {
ti
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 9-18-06
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
SOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
PLANNINGf
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment #06-05 was adopted by the
PREPARED BY:
Council on August 21, 2006. The second reading is scheduled for September 18, 2006. The
Phil Wheeler, AICP
attached ordinance makes minor clarifying revisions to the version reviewed at the August
Planning Director
meeting.
September 8, 2006
Fine-toothed review of the LDM amendments related to the Decorah Edge has resulted in three minor revisions
that should be incorporated into the ordinance at its second reading. The first clarifies the effect of the
amendments on currently effective GDP's. It is a change in wording only, with no policy impact.
61.211 Except within the Decorah Edge as defined in Chapter 59, a General Development Plan shall not be
required for any portion of an area for which a general development plan has previously been approved by the
Council, or where the zoning administrator determines that new proposed streets need not continue beyond the
land to be subdivided in order to complete an appropriate street system or to provide access to adjacent property.
Within the Decorah Edge, , any General Development Plan
approved prior to October 1, 2006 that has remained in effect in accordance with the provisions of Section 61.216
as of October 1, 2006, shall be exempt from the special protections afforded Edge Support Areas and
Groundwater Supported Wetlands addressed in Chapter 59 Section 6 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances and
from the standards applied to Substantial Land Alterations in Section 62.1105, and shall remain in effect until
October 1, 2011. After October 1. 2011, remaining portions of the General Development Plan and any proposed
subdivision plats for the area of the General Development Plan must be brought into compliance with provisions of
Chapter 59 and of this ordinance applying to the Decorah Edge ...
The second addresses the site capacity calculation process, required of all development in the Edge. The site
capacity calculation depends on density factors provided for most uses in most districts, but not for single family
detached dwellings in some districts and not for any uses in the R-1 and R-Sa districts. The revision below fills
that gap:
61.532 C. Determination of Site Capacity/Permitted Amount of Building:
The site capacity for residential density is determined by calculating the NET BUILDABLE AREA and multiplying
this number by the density factor permitted in the applicable zoning district. For residential uses types for which
density factors are not provided the density factors for performance residential development shall apply. For the R-
1 and R-Sa Districts the density factor for performance residential developments applicable in the R-1x District
shall apply....
The third revision is to 62.1105 (P). It changes the term used for the one-year time -of -travel area around
municipal wells from "emergency response zone" to "emergency response area," since the latter phrase is
preferred by the Minnesota Department of Health.
Council Action Needed: Approve the revised ordinance in the action on the second reading.
Attachments: Ordinance amendment text.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
COUNCIL ACTION: Motionby.. Second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 9/
AGENDA SECTION:
TABLED ITEMS
City Clerk
ITEM DESCRIPTION: On -Sale Intoxicating (Exclusive) and Sunday liquor Licenses - Robert PREPARED
J. Rittenhouse dba The Roxy Bar at 324 South Broadway Judy Scherr
The Council considered the application from Robert J. Rittenhouse for On -Sale Intoxicating
(Exclusive) and Sunday Liquor Licenses for a business to be known as The Roxy Bar at 324
South Broadway at its September 6, 2006, meeting.
A petition was presented by Gillian Duncan and Michael Belknap on behalf of the concerned
Citizens in the 300 Block of South Broadway asking that the Council schedule a public bearing
prior to granting of the liquor licenses. Ms. Duncan said that the building and business owners are
not against downtown bars but bad bar behavior and do not want this behavior to affect their
historic district.
The applicant was asked to present to the Council at the September 18d' meeting a detailed
business plan containing the hours of operation, the offering of the business, insulation issues,
schematic drawings of what the business will look like when completed and any additional
information pertinent to the issuance of the liquor license and/or the licensed premise.
The Council also requested that a representative of the Rochester Downtown Alliance be present
at the meeting to speak to the issue.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
The Council should make a motion to:
(1) Approve the issuance of the license,
(2) Table the matter for the purpose of gathering additional information, or
(3) Set a public hearing so as to receive testimony as to whether the license should be issued or
denied.
ILL
COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by Second by: to:
Memo
To: Mayor and Council
From: PVDouglas A. Knott
Date: September 14, 2oo6
Subject: The Roxy Bar
The Rochester Downtown Alliance Board met on September 14, 2006 and adopted
the attached report related to the issuance of an On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday
Liquor license for the Roxy Bar at 324 South Broadway. Briefly summarized, the
Board found that there was no reason not to grant a license to this individual at this
location. The RDA Board recognized that there were significant problems associated
with other establishments in the area and strongly recommended a meeting with
appropriate City officials to discuss more effective enforcement measures to deal
with these issues.
NL6
At the request of the Rochester City Council, made on September
6, 2006, the RDA, through its development committee, took up the
question of whether Robert J. Rittenhouse should be granted an
"On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor" license to establish the
ROXY Bar at 324 South Broadway. A confidential investigation
of the applicant has been approved by the Rochester Police
Department. The council requested that this opinion be given to
them at their September 18, 2006 meeting.
His proposal was opposed on behalf of the property owners' in the
area by Ms. Gillian Duncan. Ms. Duncan outlined how the present
owners of the real estate on the 300 block have renovated and
restored these blighted buildings over the last decade into a
beautiful historic block. They believe that a non smoking bar can
not be enforced and that another bar similar to Kathy's and Ultra
Lounge would lead to all types of liquor excesses in their block.
They also believe there is no way to mitigate the delinquent
impacts of the bar on the surrounding neighborhood.
The development committee met from 12:15 p.m. until 1:30 p.m.
on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 in room 104 of the Rochester
City Hall to take up this matter. There is no dispute that this type
of bar at this location does not violate our City zoning ordinances'.
Mr. Rittenhouse testified that he has been in the liquor business for
over 20 years, the last 12 years as a bar tender at the Rochester
Labor Temple. He wants to purchase the building at 324 South
Broadway and establish a smoke free bar with a `Blues" theme
open 7 days a week from 2:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. from Monday
though Thursday and 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. Friday through
Sunday.
The committee heard no evidence that this license should not be
granted to this individual at this location.
There was alarming evidence that there have been significant
problems associated with two nearby bar establishments which was
evidenced by numerous police calls involving criminal damage to
property, use of controlled substances, public intoxication,
disorderly conduct, and similar acts.
The committee strongly recommends that the RDA meet with the
appropriate council members and the police to discuss effective
enforcement of our laws relating to these types of liquor
establishments.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR ITEM
H-1
SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 AGENDA
Mayor & Council
Stevan Kvenvold
Gary Neumann
Terry Spaeth
Terry Adkins
Richard Freese
H
RESTAURANT
STREET BAR �C
APPLICA TION #
CITY OF ROCHESTER
DATE RECEIVED
RECEIPT NUMBER
AMOUNT PAID
APPLICATION FOR ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE f0Va_51- ,Ll iarl
Covering the period of , 2001 through March 31, 20 rg��_ Azocl
Name of Applicant:
Address of Applicant: 3rl()4 rT ZZnsn - 9-)-s C--- S'. YV�., /a5rr/4 ,AtrJ 3TN
Name of Corporation or Association:
Address of Corporation or Association: C7- (emu SI 7
A --(I-\) 5590 4
Social Securi Federal Tax Number:
Number: State Tax Number:
The following items must be completed and I or accompany the completed application forms.
Whoever shall knowingly falsify the answers to the following questions shall be deemed guilty of
perjury and shall be punished accordingly. In answering the following questions, one of the
officers of a corporation or partnership shall complete the application for all corporate officers,
directors and stockholders, or all members of the partnership.
1 . Name under which applicant will be doing business (name of restaurant, hotel, club etc).
Name: RDx'',- SAk
Business Address: 3o2Z(GTif g2LAEl
Telephone Number: 170S
2. Type of Applicant (check one)
Individual Partnership
Corporation Other
3. Complete the following requested information for each individual, partner or officer of
corporation (use additional �sheets if necessary)
Name: Qb?v'dZ -7A tC17Fi J140tfSt2_ Date of Birth:
(first) (full middle) (last) (�
Home Address: 32Oq RA4Z&'A 4--7-S CT- S& Roc4.-57-&A. ILM SVOS17
Home Telephone. Social Security Number:��
Business Address: Business Telephone:
Position Title: )' — l D$r i I C e' i Percentage of Interest in Partnership
or Corporation
U.S. Citizen _72� Yes Naturalized Yes If Yes, give date and
No No place
Revised 10/01
L
Have you ever been convicted of any felony or violation of any ordinance other than
traffic?
Yes If Yes, give time, place and offense
_X No
If married. state name (maiden name if wife) and date of birth of spouse:
Yes Name :
No Date of Birth:
Address at which applicant lived during the preceding five years.
(Street Number) (City)
(Street Number) (City)
(State)
(Street Number) (City) (State)
...................................................... Samoan, ... .........a.a..... ......ee.,
Name: Date of Birth:
(first) (full middle) (last)
Home Address:
Home Telephone:
Social Security Number:
Business Address: Business Telephon
Position Title, Percentage of Interest in Partnership
or Corporation
U.S. Citizen Yes
�.- ..
Naturalized Yes If Yes, give date and
No place
Have you ever been convicted of any felony or violation of any ordinance other than
i
Yes If Yes, giveLLtiine, p ce and offense
m
If married. state name (maiden name if wife) and date of birth of spouse:
Yes
Name:
No Date of Birth:
3
Address at which applicant lived during the preceding five years.
(Street Number) (City)
(Street Number) (City)
(State)
(State)
(Street Number) (City) (State)
.......... ......... ........ a ..... gas ... a.........a.a......•.................... 0..... I....
Name: Date of Birth:
(first) (full middle) (last)
Home Address:
Home Telephone: Social Security Number:
Business Address: Business Telephone:
Position Title: Percentage of Interest in Partnership
or Corporation
U.S. Citizen Yes
No
Naturalized Yes
No
If Yes, give date and
place
Have you ever been convicted of any felony or violation of any ordinance other than
traffic?
Yes
No
If Yes, give time, place and offense
If married. state name (maiden name if wife) and date of birth of spouse:
Yes Name :
No Date of Birth:
Address at which applicant lived during the preceding five years.
(Street Number) (City)
(State)
(Street Number) (City) (State)
(Street Number) (City) (State)
............................... ....................................................... wage
4
4. Identify all of the individuals who will be involved in the day-to-day management or
supervision of either the liquor or food operations of the proposed business.
(Lae --r R)TrFv31fouS
5. Has the applicant or any other individuals listed in response to question #4 engaged as an
employee in a saloon, hotel, restaurant or business of a similar nature where intoxicating
liquor was dispensed?
as If yes, give date and details: Ig54— PRAS"T
No LA&ok CL4.$ ?)fwL 5h4-6Q Ft2
6. Has the applicant or any other individual listed in response to question #4 ever had an
application for a liquor license rejected by any municipality or state authority
Yes If yes, give date and details:
—77r_No
7. Has the applicant or any other individual listed in response to question #4 interest
whatsoever, directly or indirectly in any other liquor establishment in the State of
Minnesota?
des If yes, give dates and locations:
_2C No
8. If the applicant is a corporation, date of incorporation:
State in which incorporated:
Amount of Authorized Capitalization:
Amount paid in capital:
If a Subsidiary of any other corporation, so state:
If incorporated under the laws of another state, is corporation authorized to do business in
Minnesota?
Yes If yes, number of certificate of Authority:
No
9-:- �If app licant is a new corporation, attach certified copy of Articles of Incorporation and By -
Laws.
10. Furnish the names and addresses of at least three business references including one bank
reference.
Name:
Addres
Name: _MR^A1t---1 e-M r
f rcj� �cr'-Q ll
Address: — S �— 6�� T14 Sr G-J
Name:
Address: ad f I �yi� St J
11. List floor number and street number of premises where the sale of intoxicating liquor is tc
be conducted:
1.1wnj 4- "^L Fcaz)z 3,9P 5o,,,.rrt- UnAALt4
12. Applicant shall attach a floor plan of the facility, indicating those rooms open to the
public, showing dimensions and indicating the number of persons to be served in each
room or area.
13. How is the property classified under the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Rochester?
Ce,�Zaar Br-tSl )" S DIST21crr
14. State name and address of owner of building: R,-rTr--j1fDus L
Name: &gL 7-4-tRX
Address: s3aH 6o�7-t4 f�2�A� vf1
15. Has the owner of the building any connection, directly or indirectly, with the applicant?
Yes If yes, state details:
No
16. State the amount of investment that the applicant has in the business premises, fixtures,
furniture, stock in trade, etc and attach proof of the source of such investment.
����� )o w
I
17. State the name and address and nature of interest, amount thereof, terms for payment
other reimbursement, of all person, other than the applicant, who have any financial
interest in the business, buildings, premises, fixtures, furniture or stock in trade.
Name:
Address:
Nature of Interest:
Name:
Address:
Nature of Interest:
18. Are any real estate taxes, special assessments, or utility charges delinquent or unpaid for
the premises to be licensed.?
If yes, give details:
/'S No
19. State probable impact on employment attributed to the facility.
4D atl f4
20. If application is for restaurant, state the food to liquor gross sales ratio for the proposed
facility. Indicate the type of food and food service to be offered and attach a copy of the
proposed menu.
21. If this application is for a transfer, give name of former licensee and state whether any
consideration, money or property has been paid, given or exchanged by anyone, and by
whom and to whom for the purchase or transfer of the licensee:
Name:
Consideration:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of
20
1 Hereby Verify the above Statements
(Signature of Former Licensee)
(NOTARY PUBLIC) NOTARY SEAL
7
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND / OR FORMS MUST ACCOMPANY THE
APPLICATION AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL•
22. Licenses Fees: $3200.00 Per Year (pro -rated)
$1600.00 Per Year for each additional bar (pro -rated)
23. Application for Special Sunday License (if liquor is to be served on Sunday)
24. Application for Annual Dance License (if dancing is to be held on the premises)
25. A copy of the Food Menu.
26. Certification of Insurance showing Proof of Worker's Compensation coverage (Minnesota
Statute 176.182)
27. Proof of Financial responsibility as required under the new Dram Shop Law provision
(Minnesota Statute 304A.409)
28. A copy of each Summons received by the applicant under the dram shop law during the
preceding year.
29. ALL RETAIL LIQUOR LICENSEES MUST HAVE A CURRENT FEDERAL SPECIAL
OCCUPATIONAL STAMP. THIS STAMP IS ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL,
TOBACCO AND FIREARMS. FOR INFORMATION CALL (651) 290-3496.
Make Check or Money Order payable to the CITY OF ROCHESTER and return to the OFFICE OF
THE CITY CLERK, ROOM 135, 201 4TH ST SE, ROCHESTB: , MN 55904
The applicant and his/her associates in this application, will strictly comply with all the laws of
the State of Minnesota governing the taxation and the sale of intoxicating liquor rules and
regulations promulgated by the Liquor Control Commissioner, and all nances of the
municipality: and I hereby certify that I have read the fo ing do and that the answers
to said questions are true of my own knowledge.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of ' rr 20 6G
Ll
((NOTARY PUBLIC)
TURF OF APPLICANT
amco)Q:=SjC MNNf2S TTARY PUBUGRp1JN SDTA
My COMM, fx0. Jan 31. 2010
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
REPORT - POLICE DEPARTMENT_
This is to certify that the applicant or applicants, named herein, have not been convicted withir
the past five years for any violation of laws of the State of Minnesota or Municipal ordinances
relating to liquor except as hereinafter stated.
Approved:
Da te:
REPORT - FIRE DEPARTMENT
This is to certify that the premises herein described have no outstanding notices or recorded Fire
Code Violations:
Approved By:
Date:
REPORT - PLANNING DEPARTMENT;
This is to certify that the premises have been inspected and they are in compliance with the
Rochester Zoning Code:
Approved By:
Date:
REPORT - BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT_
This is to certify that the premises herein described have been inspected and that the premises
comply with altbu' City of Rochester and state of Minnesota with
the exception of. + '
Approved By.
Date:
REPORT - HEALTH DEPARTMENT•
This is to certify that the premises herein described have been inspected and that the premises
comply with all Health Department codes of the City of Rochester and state of Minnesota with
the exception of:
Approved By:
Date:
Date of Council Action:
License Number: Date License Issued:
P
O
1
�
I
�
00
a
3
GW 4 4
o
e �
1 a
N
R
i
9
Y_
aaaa�
a�
aaaa�
aau'
aaa�
riamm-1
w
O
m
m
M
04
ou
C
CC/)
w Ww
m BLUES BAR a=� �!''•�
324 S. BROADWAY, ROCHESTER, MN 6 � 9; d{ ! A
�,., 8'y°ioz
WA
HISTORIC 300 South BROADWAY
The 300 East Side of the Urban Village
Rochester, MN
To: City Council members
From: Concerned Citizens
Date: 6 September 2006
RE: Consent Agenda Item #4 — On -Sale intoxicating (Exclusive) and Sunday Liquor Licenses —
Robert J. Rittenhouse dba The Roxy Bar at 324 South Broadway.
Attachment: Summary of Police Incident Report
It has been brought to our attention that Robert Rittenhouse is requesting approval from the Council for his
applications to do business as a street bar a.k.a the Roxy at 324 South Broadway.
We are asking the Council to table Rittenhouse's request for approval of his applications.
We want a hearing to discuss the implications of another street bar in the Historic South Broadway district in
addition to 1) the Union bar, 2) Ultra Lounge, 3) Kathy's Pub, as well as the liquor license granted to Salin
Aksan at 315 S. Broadway.
■ We want a great downtown, embraced by locals and visitors.
■ We want a historic district that offers a vibrant, mixed use of businesses, professional offices and
residential living.
■ We want our businesses to thrive and attract new investors to the historic district.
■ We want to create a framework for consideration of applications for businesses in the historic buildings
on south Broadway.
Gi{1 LI-IA rt F. OUNGAN
37_l0-'5ZS 6 F_SP-d=;^VK" M
;Z..MneMVaML. � kNap
3Zlo-3Z3 S t�rvA.7..0
DRvo
.3z 6 s, c�1�ao1✓,g
-bog )04-1-7-g-,e s o
�jl9RBA2I+ Sui sifE r�
Pit .7 - !K44- Ae -3/6 Soc Brow .P
3//
1i' k
ji;� /Kch ? J
Alcohol related incidents addressed by Rochester Police Department
from 01/05/06 to 09/04/06:
Kathy's Ultra Lounge Union Bar
307 S Broadway 320 1" Avenue 11 4" Street
1.
Theft
7
2
8
2.
Liquor violation
1
1
0
3.
Intoxicated person
18
4
8
4.
Suspicious circumstances
8
5
8
5.
Trespass
2
3
0
6.
Dispute
1
2
0
7.
Controlled substances
2
6
0
8.
Disorderly conduct
14
14
0
9.
Assault
12
6
0
10.
Warrant arrest
4
2
0
11.
HarassmentfThreats
0
1
4
12.
Traffic Violation/Obstruction
2
0
4
13.
Criminal Damage to property
2
0
4
14.
Burglary
0
0
4
15.
Alarms:burglary,duress robbery 0
1
a
16.
Property loss/found/recovered 2
2
0
17.
Assist person or Agency
7
7
4
18.
Medical
2
1
4
19.
Community Service -
Business Check
20
24
4
20.
Parking violation
1
4
0
21.
Driving under influence
2
0
0
22.
Traffic accident/stop
2
4
0
23.
Probation check
6
1
0
24.
Exposer
1
0
0
25.
Missing person
1
1
0
26.
Escort
1
0
0
27.
Unknown problem
1
2
0
28.
Apprehension order
1
1
0
29.
Domestic
0
1
0
30.
Motor Vehicle theft
0
1
0
31.
Code/Ordinance violation
0
3
0
32.
E911 Hangups/misuse
0
1
0
TOTAL 130
100
60
Bar business related problems that will impact on neighbors in addition to the above:
1. Bad bar behavior (urinating on the sides of buildings, vomiting on sidewalks, broken glass, etc.)
2. Noise from music, bands and clientele (within and outside of building)
3. Hours
4. Cigarette smoking
5. Safety of alley entrances which are used as main entrances to some buildings
6. Quantity of trash
7. Barjumping