Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-1968Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., June 7, 1968 I' Minutes of an adjourned regular meeting of the -Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota held in the Council Chambers, inthe City Hall in said City, on June 7, 1968. President DeVries called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P. M., the following members being present: President DeVries, Aldermen Day, Ellison, Folkert, Larson, Postier. Absent: Alderman Perry. President DeVries announced that at Monday's meeting the Council adjourned until 7:30 this evening for discussion of the flood control plan for Apache Mall Center, there has evidently been some misunderstanding, maybe on my part, of the exact proposal for flood control and apparently misunderstanding on the part of the developers; there were four questions submitted pertaining to the shopping center plan and the variation, a hearing has been set for the plan and variation for June 17th so what we are concerened with are the flood control plans that were submitted in December, 1965; we have checked through everything, newspaper articles, City Engineer's office, planning Department, etc. and there was a plan submitted or proposed for the Zumbro River from 12th to 16th Street, if someone has bogged down to as what the definite plan would be for the flood control of this area then I think that isuhere we should start at this time. Mr. Richard Guidera, Secretary of Rochester Mall Company, stated that he would ij like to summarize the situation and noted that in December, 1965 and January, 1966 the ;,Rochester Mall Company presented a program whereby Apache Mall would obtain the gravel fill in part if the channel were widened, which had various questions such as acquisition of lands, etc.; a proposal was made to the Planning and Zoning Commission and this Common Council, this proposal was not made in a haphazard manner nor offhanded way, the U. S. Corps of Engineers indicated that his organization would have had an opportunity, if their proposal had been accepted, to realize a savings of $100,000 to $150,000 in Acquisition of the fill. In fact Rochester Mall was advised that the Corps of Engineers and Department of Conservation • were discussing a water shed for the development of the total flood plain for the South and a study would be completed by 1966 but the final studies were not available until the end of 1967 and final action was not taken until 1968. Rochester Mall Company attempted to solve this and got no encouragement from the governing bodies. A letter from the Corps of Engineers Ii that the 1962 flood south of T. H. 14 might not have occurred if not for the construction under the bridge and the letter also indicated that if Plan "A" had been adopted then, in effect there would have been no flood south of Highway 14 and the level of the river would have been some 7 feet below flood stage; it is our understanding that the final plan was approved in 'April, 1968, more than two years following our presentation to the Planning & Zoning 'Commission and the Common Council, during that time it was quite obvious that there was quite a bit of discussion going on, in September, 1967 appeals were again made to the Corps of Engineers and the City of Rochester relative to the channel improvement and again no action was taken; we did not receive any answer from the governmental units but we had a letter from C. A. Armstrong, City Engineer that he personally would have been opposed to the program; our information in regard to the Zumbro River Flood Plain indicated that the flood plain is primarily involved with the dam up stream south of our side and the channel widening improvement 1 0 1 1 1] i • Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., June 7, 1968 C D_78920 I known to be T. H. 14, our study shows no plan for any area in our property; accordingly, our +� committee proceeded in January to commence its site breaking with that knowledge and until this time we had no question relative to this and would like to suggest this might be a concern of the City but it is our belief that actually no little problem exists and we think it might be a matter of public concern that if there is a hazard to the east of the Zumbro River that a feasibility study should be made and then the adjoining property owners would be.invited to participate. �I C. A. Armstrong, City Engineer stated that he was referring to the particular plan that Apache Mall proposed and it was shown on some of the preliminary plans and he did not see any value of that particularplan; He did not think it should be referred to as a flood control plan, the proposal presented by Apache Mall was a channel construction plan adjacent to their property; that plan was to widen and deepen the channel river adjacent to the property and although it was referred to as flood control and beautification it looked like it was a means of providing fill for their project; he said his feelings were presented in a letter dated September, 1967 and that is his contention; when asked if he ordinarily put his opinion into a letter he said the Common Council had not acted on this plan and he wanted them to know his feelings and suggested steps be taken to present it to the Common Council. Tom 0. Moore, Planning Director., stated that Apache did talk about a park at one time but to the east of the lot that is north -south parallel with the river, thiere is a parcel of land in the northeast area side that had been designated at one time as a public park and there has been nothing more done on that; he said he did not know where this stands it would be primarily for the benefit of the people using the shopping center; he said this land was originally in a rural area and when it was annexed to the City it came in as residential and li the owners had requested a change of zoning on the entire property from R-1 to B-3 zone and it when this was considered, the Planning & Zoning Commission went along with it.but did reserve I' the area to widen the river channel, at this time this was exempt from B-3 zone and was put in Ii I the flood control area. ll II Alderman Day stated that there is a problem here and inquired if Apache plans to � l • do anything to the channel or build a dike on the east side;- he said hearings wereheld so the IIpeople surrounding could be heard and understand what is happening; if a statement such as thislf is made to the Planning & Zoning Commission and to the County that you are going to-do this, a II it i very definite statement of fact that a dike would be built and he then read the following quotejl jI from the Planning & Zoning Commission minutes made by Mr. A. W. Godward, Engineer for Apache, �I II 1 "he further stated that the Soil Conservation Department feels that there is no real problem i li south of the Highway 14 in this particular area; Mr. Godward stated that a dike would be jl it I� constructed to protect the low land on the east side of the South Branch of the Zumbro River" Alderman Day said it was his contention that when such a statement is made at two meetings, that jithis is a commitment; he said the people in this area had been told what Apache said they would! do and now and -now to tell ;them it would not be is not good, I think we have quite an j r; obligation to these people. Mr. Guidera said the plans presented were only preliminary and he li. I! i Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., June 7, 1968 ld have to question the interpretation of the minutes of the Planning & Zoning 4ommission also the reference in the paper; he said Rochester Mall was only a small part of the fee involved in this project and if the channel were changed it would take not only the bof the Council but also the County and State. Alderman Day said not only did the IIminutes show their proposal in writing but he heard it told to the Common Council right in i1these chambers. IIAlderman Folkert - I live in this area across the highway and so when this all (came up originally I was interested as to what the plan was for and I am not basing my lirecollection on the Planning & Zoning minutes or on the Post Bulletin but on my recollection Ilas it was said here before the Common Council and Alderman Day's recollection is the same Ilas mine; when you were talking about your project you did say there was going to be incorporated in this flood control measure that some improvement was going to be made to the channel; in 11 ijtalking to the people in this area they are very concerned about what is going to happen, as if iifar as flood control in the Southwest area it would only make sense that they/would fill along the river the water would have to be diverted some place else; at the Planning & Zoning meetings the question was posed as to what measures would be taken to control the flow of water and in your plans -it calls for widening, dikes, etc.; what is important is that something is going to be done and when annexation and zone changes were approved it was done on the standing that something would be done; if in -your discussion with other units of govern- jment and you then changed your mind you should have come back to the Council and said that �lyour mind was changed; in your contact with the U. S. Corps of Engineers I would say that the �I iplan we have favored for flood control in Rochester and surrounding area calls for channel changes so we would be very interested in channel improvements in the area; what came across i 11oud and clear to us was that something was going to be done. it Mr. A. C..Godward said the plan we are talking about is the plan showing the f�feasibility of this project, at the request of the architects and Apache, in 1965 they did not own this land, they were thinking of the desirability of the acquisition and development, they knew this feasibility plan had to be compatable with the City plan and so with the cooperation from the State Highway Engineer, U. S. Corps of Engineers and Conservation Department, etc. this plan was developed as a feasibility plan to develop the some 100 acres of land to bring it in the tax base of the City and they felt they would be helping the community; looking back to 1965 we had a lot of things to do, we had to have sanitary sewer, water supply, etc. so we proceeded, we spent all the time we could with the engineers and developed a plan that was feasible to the best interest of everyone concerned. The feasibility plan was prior to the acquisition of the land and when they decided on annextation they followed this plan closely; the owner dedicated the street, the contribtutions of Apache have been substantial; he said he had presented a proposal which included widening of the stream and a dike but no approval had been received; he said they would have preferred to use that plan because they could have used the fill from the river channel, then time became an element and to get access they had to change the street and change the access on the state highway,, they made these changes and felt they followed the plan very closely, the only thing they had not done was the I . F_ L� F 9 Record of Official Proceedings of the `Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., June 7, 1968 1 • 1 1 LJ 1 channel change and this was mainly because they did not own the land and no onecould give them the right but the City of Rochester; if that had been available he would have advised Apache to channelize the river at that time; he said someone has to buy the land before you can channelize the river, the dike you are talking is a bank about 3000 feet long and could be built out of materials from the river channel, you are only talking about 50 or 60 thousand cu. yds. of excavation; he said he felt it was quite ridiculous to hold up a permit after all the trouble they have gone to, if you added up all the things they had to do and now you set it down on -one thing, it does not seem right. Alderman Larson inquired who had been contacted about getting the fill that they were going to use. Mr. Robert Davidson said the fact was that they could not take fill out of the channel unless they had permission and they had to go on with the shopping center and could nob wait for the eminent domain process and keeping in mind that they had received no definite approval from anyone, they had to go ahead and had to have the fill; he said the fill was just taken from the open land. Alderman Day also inquired who Mr. William Leach had contacted to try to buy the fill from, he said it had been previously stated that the reason they did not go ahead was they had contacted the owners of the land but could not follow through because of the high costs involved, and would like to know who had been contacted. No answer was received. Mr. Robert Davidson, Attorney said they are trying to cooperate and go ahead, he said the remark was made that is not this type of thing customary, and the answer to that is as a matter of fact this whole hearing is extraordinary; he said he had been with Apache since the first of the year and did not know why they were here; a year ago in March, 1966 a resolution was adopted and this particular area was rezoned and there were no conditions on that; he said in his expreince that you have an agreement with the municipality so that later on things like this do not happen, it is especially essential that you know what your liabilities are and the way to do this is to enter into contract so ybu*know what it is; this is no small deal, I do not know what the dike would cost but at this there is no contractual obligation for the dike; we are talking about two things, is there going to be any flood problems to the south and east, when you passed the zoniagk;ordinance you made an exception and set a flood plain district to the south and as owner of the majority of the land to the west of the river we would take part of the feasibility report to see what it was; Mr. Guidera is not ruling out that he will not cooperate with the City if there is going to be a flood problem; how long are we obligated to wait for the zoning certificate and building; in four or five years when the government units all get together and build this plan we will then do what we have to do but there is no question now that there is no written contract. R. V. Ehrick, City Attorney, then inquired of.W . Davidson if he was saying that the City were fools to take their word; He said he ghought they should appreciate that on Monday night at the Council meeting the Common,Council first became aware that you plan to do nothing about the channel; they had waited all this time in reliance of the drawings presented and the statements of the Engineer that something was plannted to take care of these problems and it Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., June 7, 1968 was only when the recommendation came from the Planning & Zoning Commission on Monday night that they were aware of this. R. V. Ehrick asked Mr. Goward if at the time the proposal was made showing the channel deepening and widening was it made as a solution that it would resolve any increase in surface water or was the primary purpose for taking f illI out for the shopping center. W. Godward slid the plan was presented primarily as a feasibility report and he thought the report was for the best interest of the City and the property owners adjacent. Alderman Larson inquired if the City were to go ahead with the plan and try to acquire the land on the east side of the stream would Apache still be willing to share in the cost. Mr. Guidera said they would undoubtedly have to share in that, but he would have to see a feasibility report and know how much their share would be before he would be able to say definitely. Mr. Godward said he did think there is a flood problem and with the total flood control district and if this is believed that he suggested that a feasibility study be made and if there is a problem then he thought some action should be taken and Apache would want to particiate with anyone else involved along the river; He said he definitely thought a feasibility study should be made. Mr. Guidera also thought a feasibility study should be made and if the study indicated channel changes were necessary and land would have to be purchased then they would have to become involved because it would run on their land on the east side, they would become involved with what their share would be; he said if and when that happend their engineer may have an opinion that it is not necessary and he may appear and say why he thinks it sould be unncessary. Alderman Day said this has been presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Common Council as to what you would do and we have carried it about as far as we can; he said from what was said the City could gather that Apache would be responsible for their property only and if this were true he felt whatever action was necessary should be taken to have them fulfill their plan, if the proper action was to take it to court then that should be.done but he personally felt that Apache should carry through with what they said they would do. Alderman Folkert also stated that it was his underatanding that this, was included in the overall pstan and still felt they should do it and if any change was made in their plans they should have come back to the Council and made their decision known. Alderman Larson said due to the fact that all government bodies enter into the flood control program and the fact that the Apache did not have the right to do anything to the river bed took some of the possibilittes out of their hands, they were limited as to what they could do, he said he thought they lost the control of what they proposed to do at that stage. Alderman Postier said he had been on the Public Works Committee for the first 15 months that he was on the Council and during that time none of this was brought up, but he said his feelings would be that they should go along with what they said they would do. Mr. Richard Guidera again repeated that he felt they had submitted a plan and this • n • 1 • • Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., June 7, 1968 • 1 1 1] r. L had not been approved; he said when asked if they were prepared to pay for this he did not know what the costs were and would have to take the psosition that they are an interested owner on the west only; he said a three months delay would be costly to them, they were in the final development plan of the shopping center and now wanted to get the zoning certificate and had also requested the vattance of .07 feet for their building, and could not see why this was being held up. Alderman Larson said he did not think it was the intetntion to hold up in any way because the Council realizes the value of having this shopping center; he said as a whole they were given the impression that there was going to be some work on this reiver and the work of an overall flood control plan and he recommended that a feasibility study on the matter be made and then proceed from there. Alderman Day said he felt that Apache and Mr. Guidera were not following through on what they had said they would do, the Council tried wot,work with them but said "don't put the monkey on our backs"; the Council is hereto protect the citizens of this town and that is what we try to do, he said he would not think of holding the zoning over your head, thin would have come up in the next 6 month anyway, he said he was sorry we had to go through this but felt strongly that it should be settled. Mr. Guidera said he would like to comment that there is a set of minutes and a letter, if there is a difference he thinks it is pretty evident that when men sit down and talk back and forth there is a difference of opinion and there seems to be a differnce of opinion here; he said he did not intend to imply that he was putting the monkey on your back; he said he thtought the staff members of the City and County were qualified people and had done a good job; he said he was pleased with the relationship he has had with the City. A motion was then made by Day, second by Folkert, that the question of having a feasibility report on the channelization of the reiver in this area be referred to the Public Works Committee; all voted in favor. Upon motion by Larson, second by Folkert, and all voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned Until 7:30 P. M. on June 17, 1968. City Clerk 0 Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council • of the City of Rochester, Minn., CA=6071'3 IS,