Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-1970Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., June 19, 1970 607 1 • 1 1 is Minutes of a special meeting of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota,,held in the.Council Chambers of said City Hall, on Friday, the 19th day of June, 1970, at 11:30 o'clock A.M., the following members being present: President Postier, Aldermen Larson, Ludowese, Mc Nary, Strain, and Willmarth. Absent: Alderman Cherland. The call of the meeting was read and ordered placed on file, said meeting being called for the purpose of considering a revised agreement with Olmsted County for the construction of ,2nd St. S.W. and to consider proposed sidewalk regulations relative to the sidewalk ordinance. A motion was made by Larson, second by Strain, and all voting in favor, that the second item on the agenda be taken up first. Recommendation of the Public Works Committee for approval of the following: "Statement of Requirements of Ordinance 1543 requiring Sidewalk Construction, and Procedures to be followed in complying with its provisions. A. Statement Ordinance No. 1543 requires construction of a sidewalk adjacent to any property when a new building is erected unless its installation at the time of the building construction is waived by recommendation of the City Engineer on account of one of the following circumstances: 1. "Sidewalks would be impractical to install because of topographical conditions". 2. "Because of the present and anticipated development of the area the , installation of sidewalks at the time herein required would serve no useful purpose". IN APPLYING THIS CONDITION, CONSTRUCTION WILL BE WAIVED IF A MAJORITY OF THE LOTS IN THE BLOCK HAVE BEEN BUILT UPON PREVIOUS TO THIS ORDINANCE WITHOUT SIDEWALK HAVING BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THEM. HOWEVER, SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED LATER ON ALL LOTS WHEN ALL THE LOTS.HAVE BEEN BUILT UPON. Whenever waiver of construction is recommended, the Engineer's Office will issue a written statement for the benefit of the Building Inspector and the property owner. B. Procedures to be followed in complying with its provisions: 1. The regular Sidewalk Contractors permit for sidewalk construction obtainable at the City Engineer's Office will still be required for each construction. The sidewalk contractor will be responsible for locating the driveway crossing. 2. The completion date as requested by the contractor will be specified on the sidewalk permit. 3. Staking and inspection will be done by the City Engineer's Department forces. 4. When the sidewalk is constructed the Engineer's Department will notify the Building Inspector. If it is not constructed by the specified completion date the Engineer's Office will so notify the Building Inspector. 5. If the sidewalk is not constructed by the contractor or owner as required on the Building Permit, it shall be trated as a violation of the Building Code. In addition to any action of this violation, the City will order and construct the sidewalk under the local improvements procedure and assess the costs to the property. 6. 4 foot wide sidewalks may be permitted in new residential subdivisions where minimum pedestrian traffic is anticipated. The City Engineer's Office will maintain a record map indicating areas where 4 foot sidewalks will be permitted. No 4 foot wide sidewalk will be per- mintted in a block where any 5 foot 4 inch wide sidewalk has been 4 previously constructed. 7. The City Engineer's Office will also maintain a map as a guide and record of where sidewalk construction may be waived in accordance with statement A above. Upon motion by Larson, second by Strain, and all voting in favor, recommendation accepted. At 11:45 A.M. the Council recessed and returned at 12:55 A.M. 0 606 Record of Official Proceedings of the' "Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., June 19, 1970 • A motion was made by Larson, second by McNary, to approve the resolution accepting the revised cooperative construction agreement for Job No. 6202-3-69 (Widening, Repaving, Sidewalks, Sewers, Watermain, and Service Connections -in Second Street South- west.- T.H. 14-52 to 23rd Avenue Southwest) entitled City -County Street Improvement Contract, said plans and specifications having been amended to omit the extension of sanitary sewer and water mains west of the City limits and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign on behalf of the City. Estimated project reduced by $45,000. There still remains deferred special assessments of $8,400.00. Provides that the County be solely responsible for the acquisition of the drainage easements outside the City limits from • the north right-of-way line of 2nd St. S.W. commencing at a point which is 60 feet west of the center line of 21st Ave. S W., and also extending north outside the present City limits from the West Zumbro Addition along 19th Ave. West extended. The total City's share is estimated at $211,000 financed as follows: $144,000.00 from the Public Improve- ment Fund, $58,600.00 from Current Special Assessments, and $8,4b0.00 from Deferred Special Assessments. The original figure was $256,000.00 as the City's share, and original estimated project cost was $516,400.00, as explained by Attorney Gerald Swanson. President Postier asked if there was anyone present wishing to be heard. Al Larson, of the Trade Mart, who had indicated there are about 300 persons employed in the area in question and had not appeared at the hearing. He requested that when the area is torn up for the project that access areas be made for persons coming to their place of business, and voiced concern over'the possible loss of business during the period of construction. He indicated that he had not been present at the hearing because he is not a property owner, but he has a tax clause whereby he pays the taxes on the property. President Postier raised the question as,to when and where the traffic count had been made in this area, and Mayor Day said it was taken 100 feet West.of the Service road or in the middle of the project. It was an adjusted average of 3,600 or 0 4,116 actual at the driving range. 1 Alderman Strain reiterated that this project was given top priority in the budget, but if it was ever to be done, now is the time to do it when $119,000 is turned back, and an estimated $25,000 has already been spent on preparation of the project. The following petition with 16 signatures was introduced: "We, the under- signed businessmen plead to our Mayor and Council members to please reject the proposed, or any alternative plan, of reconstruction of Second St'. S.W. Not only is it a waste of -tax money, but will also seriously affect property values and existing places of business." Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., June 19, 1970 609, 1 • 1 1 C� J 1 Jim Anderson, of Jim's Ranch Market, who has been in business 3k years on 2nd St. S.W. along the area in question, stated.that he was in agreement with Mayor Day. He opposed the spending of tax money, just wanted to stay in business, and felt they shouldn't be put out of business just to prove a point. He questioned if access road would be on his side or the other side of the street and how long it would: -',take. Les Fiegel, from the Fiegel Trust, wished to stop the storm sewer from empty- ing into his property. He has about 809 feet of frontage that will be affected. He has been trying to get the Commissioners and Engineer to prevent this overflow in coming into their property in such concentration and was not happy.with this improvement. As property develops on the south side of 2nd St., more and more water will be coming out. The property which he owns is not in the City limits:. He questioned why he didn't receive a notice of the hearing on this, and was informed by Mr. Armstrong that persons living outside the City limits.are not notified of such hearings, although there is public notice in the newspaper. He was also informed that he would not be assessed until the property came into the City. Duane Vonch questioned where watermains would be installed in the future, and Mr. Armstrong said they would be in the boulevard and the street would not have to be'torn up again. Wm. Fitzgerald, 162 21st St..N.E.,said that he felt the road should be put. in. He is with Rochester.Sand and Gravel and stated that if they should get the contract they would do all in their power to keep.the road open for business. ' Elizabeth Hanenberger asked how this particular project got'top priority when these people have not asked for it. Mr. Armstrong answered because of study made two years ago,. and because funds are made available only this year. President Postier said they had never received any letters relative to water problem out there. t Upon roll call to approve the resolution accepting the City -County Street Improvement Contract, Alderman Larson, Ludowese, McNary, Strain and Willmarth voted "aye" and President Postier voted "nay". Mayor Day stated that he intended to sign this, and sait, "As of today, on June 19th, 1970, I have signed my name to the Larson-Eichten Folly of 1970." Upon motion by McNary, second by Strain, and all voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned. Doris A. Schubert Deputy City Clerk 17A