Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-1986Agenda Item A-1 1 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL ���� CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 22 —January 21, 1986 President Postier called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., the following members being present: President Postier, Aldermen Allen, Bluhm, Duffy, Powers, Solinger and Strain. Absent: None Allen moved, Powers second to approve the minutes of the January 6, 1986 meeting. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. A Hearing on the PUD # 85-15 Application for a Planned Unit Develop- ment ( Concept Statement ) for Virgil's Auto Clinic. Wishing to be heard was Ron Fiscus of Yaggy Associates representing Mr. Virgil Nelson the applicant. Mr. Fiscus urged the Council to approve this PUD statement and stated that the intended use of this house is for dry storage such as tires, batteries without acid and the like. He stated the heat in the building is safe and the safety of all other aspects is approved. They stated the Planning Department and Building and Safety Departments have no problems with this use. He stated that they will landscape the east and west side of the parking lot. They will have no outside storage and they intend to keep this looking like a resident. They will have windows that Will fit into the arcitecture of a house and they will have no signs near. Wishing to be heard was Craig Sheets of 1123 1st St. S. W. He lives directly across the street and has no problems with Mr. Nelson's business on 2nd St. S. W. However he is not in favor of extending this to 1st St. S. W. He also stated that this would not fit into a residential zoning and that Mr. Nelson had been operal ing this type of storage business for the past two or three years in violation of the zoning code. Mr. Sheets states that operating this business without permission disturbs him. He is also concerned about who would use the fire extinguishers if no-one is in the building. Wishing to be heard was Bob Jones of 102 llth Ave. S. W. He lives across the street and in in favor of the PUD. He stated that Mr. Nelson operates an excellent business and will provide the necessary safety requirements and he will be a good neighbor. Wishing.to be heard is Mike Podul.ke of Rochester and lives one block away. He stated that Mr..Nelson is trying to make more parkin( in the area and in a certain case, they will have less cars in the area then if they had rental units. Having no one else present that wished to be heard, President Postier closed the hearing. Alderman Duffy questioned if there is any other mechanism to provide Mr. Nelson with this type of use other than B-lb zone. Mr. Ron Baily of the Planning Department stated that B-lb is the only way. Alderman Solinger wanted to know what was directly across the street from this proposed PUD. He was told from Ron Baily that it.was mostly two or three family homes. Alderman Solinger was also concerned about the fire safety. Mr. Bai' stated that this would be checked and approved by the various departments when a check is made. Alderman Strain reminded the Council that under a PUD the Council maintains control of what is going to be put in the area. Alderman Solinger wondered if the East- West alley would remain open. He was assured that it would. The North South alley is already vacated. Having no.further comments by the Council, Bluhm moved, Strain second to approve the concept ly 25'70 Agenda Item RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA AdjournPd MPPtina No 22 - Jan 21, 1986 statement subject to the following recommendations by the Planning staff: 1. Landscape each end of the parking lot; 2. Pave parking lot within one year of approval 3. No outside storage around buildings north of alley; 4. No service station business signs on area north of alley; 5. Storage building to remain residential looking on exterior. Ayes (5), Nays (2). Alderman Duffy and Solinger voted nay. Motion carried. Aldermen also included Alderman Powers comment in the list of suggestions. Alderman Powers commented that he voted for the concept statement but when the preliminary or final plan is presented, he wants some justification on how the house will look. He stated that it is now shabby and he wants to have the exterior look good. Alderman Duffy stated that this is one of the most difficult situations he has encountered. Mr. Nelson runs a most efficient business but he is concerned about establishing First Street S. W. as part of his business. Alderman Duffy stated that this is an invitation to other businesses to infringe on the First Street S.W. area for expansion. He feels the neighborhood should remain as it is in an R-1 district. Alderman Bluhm was concerned about the parking near the business and requested the Planning Department to check on the situation. Alderman Solinger has concerns about using this house for storage. He can't quite go along with this use. He did however stated that he would be in favor of using this property for parking purposes. Ron Fiscus of Yaggy Associates wished to comment that Mr. Nelson has had problems with additional room for storage. He would definitely keep this house in tip-top shape and as soon as some future building expansion on 2nd St. S. W. are completed, he would turn this house back into a living establishment, consequently this storage facility would be short-lived. A Hearing on the Appeal # 85-4 An Appeal of the decision of the Zoni Board of Appeals which aprpoved an Appeal to the Decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission which denied a conditional use permit for an Automotive Service Station in the B-lb (Neighborhood Business Zoning District. Wishing to be heard was Bob Suk, Attorney from Rochester, here on behalf of Super America the applicant for the zone change. He stated that he is going to keep his comments brief and would like to be given another chance to answer questions later in this hearing. President Postier stated that he would be given this chance. Mr. Suk stated that the only two things that he would like to address at this point. 1. Presented an artist view of the proposed site and make sure that the Council 2. Received a copy of the Barton -Ashman report dated January 16, 1986 addressing the traffic problems in the area. He noted that an interesting fact is that 78,000 sq. ft. of the property, only 10,000 sq. ft. is being used. IK n RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meetinq No. 22 - January 21. 1986 Agenda Item B-2 Wishing to be heard was Tom Murray of the Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated that they had seven members attend the meeting where this appeal was considered. Two members did not vote because of conflict of interest. five members were left. four members voted in favor and one opposed this appeal. Mr. Murray stated they the Board spent approx. two hours in this question and that they looked at all the conditions involved if a conditional use would be permitted. He stated that when the Board looked back on the B-lb district they seen' some difficulties in the days when the ordinance was drawn, the idea of a small neighborhood service station was considered to be much smaller then the one that is proposed. This is part of the problem, dealini. with the B-lb and how the changes have occurred. Wishing to be heard was Paula Chamberland of 3603 17th Avenue N• W. My name is Paula Chamberland and I'm one of the speakers for the 37th Street Neighbors Association. My family's residence is 3603 17th Avenue N.W., next door on the south side of the proposed development. First, I would like to circulate a copy of the petition circulated in our neighborhood containing 229 signatures. Also, before continuing I would like my neighbors who are here to be recognized. Would you please stand. Thank you. Our neighborho( has a reputation for cooperating with developers. We supported the Real Estate Center's proposal which was a plan unit development for this site containing an office building at the corner with a set of townhouses on each side. In 1984 we supported the North Point Neighborhood Plaza for this site also. In our discussions with the developer we were assured this would be closed at night. Personall, I am on record stating the mall idea had potential but I opposed the zoning change from PUD to Blb. I felt the zoning change would take away the neighborhood's abi.lity to keep close tabs through our elected officials for the development on this site. By our support of these proposed developments we do acknowledge that this is a neighborhood commercial site. Suggestions for development are: a professional building appropriate for dentists, attorneys, chriopractors, stockbrokers, real estate office or an insurance company. A childcare center has also been mentioned. These busine� would not be 24-hour operations. On January 5, 1981 we stood befor( this Council in support of the developer for the residential plan unit development located on the Southwest corner of 15th Avenue and 37th Street also. Our 25-year old neighborhood with single family and quiet attractive multiple dwellings is residential in nature. This aspect is shown in the aerial photographs I am passing to you and on the map on the overhead projector. Before closing we would like to note that all proposals supported by us have had no access on 37th Street. We feel this limitation made when the road was planned is wise and necessary for the protection of our neighborhooc character. Thank you. Bernie you are next. My name is Bernie Parker. I live at 3510 15th Avenue N. W. I am also with the 37th Street Neighbor's Association. My neighbors and I firmly believe that the proposal in front of you tonight does not 25�1 ises I 2572 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 22 - January 21, 1986 Agenda Item B-2 meet the spirit or the letter of B-lb zoning. B-lb states that it is intended to permit selected businesses in areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods where analysis of the population demonstra that such_faciliti.es -ar-e- re-quired.�and.desirabJe...-The -key"words we feel are "-required".and."desirable", gentlemen. Nothing has been shown to demonstrate that this proposal is required. As most of you know, adequate service stations and convenience stores exist in our general area. Two gas stations less than a mile to the west, a station going in one mile to the east, convenience stores to the north and south and a full -service supermarket about a mile to the east also. It is certainly not desired as shown by petitions pre- sented to you and the presence here tonight of my neighbors and my- self. We also would like to believe that each conditional use application is based on analysis of the surrounding neighborhood. A Miss Chamberlin has demonstrated, our's is a residential neighborhoo it is not a neighborhood in transition. 'This proposal, we feel, als violates items A and B of 61.301 of the zoning code covering conditional use permits. Item A states: "the proposed use will not be determin-Cal'or endanger the public health, convenience or general welfare." This use is far too intense for the site and, indeed, for a neighborhood business and will create dangerous increases and disruptions of the traffic flow. It will also affect the public convenience by hindering residents of the area from enjoying their normal use of a key intersection in our neighborhood. Item B states in part: "the proposed use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood." Oee of the basic uses and enjoyments of our home is being able to sleep based on your work schedule. A 24-hour noise -producing operation such as this wil certainly injure the rights of the immediate neighbors in this regar Even those of my neighbors who work other than 9 to 5 and must sleep during the day will be less disturbed by a less intense use. Thank you. Wishing to be heard was Curt Sutheimer of 1916 38th Street N. W. Hello, my name is Curt Sutheimer: I reside at 1916 38th Street N.W. I would like to speak on comments and analysis relating to the Rochester Zoning Code section 61.301, specifically parts E, F, and G. My approach tonight will be as follows. First, I will comment on the intent of each part of that section. I will follow this by and review any comments or anaylsis that Super America has provided that we feel are significant. Unfortunately this report does not include the most recent data that Super America has before you; however, we don't feel that that will impact the creditibility of this presentation. Lastly., our view will be presented. What we would like to do is show the Council that our findings are sub- stantial and are provided to aid in your decision tonight. Part E of that section that I mentioned before states that adequate ingress and egress will be provided to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The intent here is to insure that the business will not (tape changed at this time) .... Super America best addresses this part in the Barton -Ashman Report previous to the January.l6th release, it's dates November 15th and is on page 2, subheading RECORDOFOFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL Agenda Item i 1 CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 22 - January 21, 1986 "Traffic Operations". The first paragraph states that 85 to 90 percent of the traffic generated by the SA facility comes directly from the traffic stream that is already passing by. In addition, the second paragraph considers the two enter -exit driveways that were considered in the design; the 18th Avenue approach as well as the 37th Street approach. I would like to present a plat for the proposed location. I don't expect that you will be able to read all the fine print but there is one small section off to the right that I'm going to read for you. And what it says is "the right of vehicular ingress and egress from the adjacent property over and across this line is prohibited." That arrow is directed specificall at the 37th Street border. The Barton -Ashman Report clearly assumes that the 37th Street access i"s available; technically it is not. The volume of the total traffic expected for this business would ha% to be directed toward the 18th Avenue entrance. Eighteenth Avenue is a two-way two-lane roadway. It is certainly safe to conclude that the expected daily volume at this entrance would create in- convenience and, thus, a restriction on the rights of motorists in that part of the intersection. Would you put the next foil up, please. Geographically, if you think about it traveling out of that particular intersection in any of the four directions requires you to go uphill. The two most significant grades are east on 37th and south on 18th Avenue. From a traffic standpoint the most dangerous traffic situation would be the entrance into the proposed site of a car traveling westbound on 37th Street entering as the red circle shows. The elevation at this point creates a blind spot for motorists traveling westbound on 37th. I am sure that this has beer a significant contributing factor for decisions which have been madE in the past concerning access to this plat. The next part, part F, states that: "the traffic generated by the proposed use can be safety accomodated on existing or planned streets". This part addresses safety specifically and considers that plans for immediatE future improvement to streets should be considered in the judgement. Super America, through Barton -Ashman, states that based on a similar station in the Twin Cities, 86 vehicles should enter and exit both during the AM and PM hours. Results of the assumed traffic patterns are also listed on the maps. Based on this result, no impact to safety is evident in this report. With all due respect, in order tc arrive at a decision concerning this issue, I would have to questior the results of this part of the report. No explanation is given as to what the similarities are between the existing metropolitan Twin Cities station and the proposed site. More importantly, and I would like to stress this, that no mention is given as to the similarity between the existing and proposed stations in terms of V interface between the station and respective neighborhood types. WE would like to present some calculations we have done and compare them to the results previously mentioned in the Barton -Ashman Report As well, staff reports will be compared. For our source we will USE an independent traffic analysis group, the Illinois Section ITE. The dates on these documents are important. The studies are at least ten years old. It is safe to conclude that.our results will be conservative. What I hope to show is that even with conservativE assumptions that we are going to make the actual traffic statistics 2573 25` 4 Agenda Item M. RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 22 - January 21, 1986 exceed those reported by the Barton -Ashman Report or staff. What I would like to do is present the first four; and what we are doing there is we are talking about a convenience store study and it's based on a 1000 square foot area. Could you present the next foil, please. Okay, now that particular fault presents a traffic study as well. In this case, it's for a service station. That particular service station is not defined on that particular fault; I don't know if it's five pumps or twenty pumps. In any event, I would like to go on to the next fault. This particular foil looks at the traff study in terms of pumps per day. I guess I would like to go on to the next foil now. If I'm going too fast for anybody, please let me know. Back to the first foil with the calculations;*Peak Hour.-. Statistics. As I mentioned before, Barton -Ashman says that there_ - is going to be 86 vehicles per hour during the peak period. What I am going to do is assume that the Twin Cities station is similar to tha proposed in the following manner. The station proposed has 4800 square feet in its convenience store, and.the station proposed has 15 pumps or equivalent to 30 hoses. For the convenience store cal- culation, what I am going to do is give them an 0.5 efficiency for store space. In other words, I am not going to take off 4800 square feet for that calculation, I am going to use only half of that, 2400 and what I am going to do then is look at the study for the 1000 foo square area store and multiply that by the factor 2.4 over 1 or 2400 over 1000; in any event you come out with 131.5. The gas station calculation, what we are going to do is to use this independent study which looks at the pump and we are going to take the 5.5 trips per pump at the peak period and multiply that by the 15 pumps and that comes out to 82.5 trips. If you add that up, it's 214 trips. Two hundred and fourteen trips compared to 86 is about a 2.48 factor Okay, now let's look at the calculations per day. What we are going to do here is we are going to look at the staff results and in their analysis they show that there was 1373 vehicles per day to use the facility. What we are going to do is we are going to go back again and look at the convenience store and we are going to take the; no, what they did is, the staff, is take the 625 trips per day for the 1000 foot store and added to the statistic for the service station rather than the pumps. Okay, and that number in that report was 748 and that's how they came up with their number. What we are going to do is, we are going to approach it from a different way; multiply the 625 rrunber from the convenience store study by this factor 2.4 over 1. Again, this is a 50 percent efficiency that we are going to assume. And we come out with the number of 1500 trips per day. For the gas station we are going to use a per pump analysis and we come out with 1195 trips for a total of 3495 average trips. And, again, the factor is 2.54 in favor of us. We think tna these results show much more accurately the magnitude of traffic that would be generated. Certainly, this increase will have an im- pact on the safety of this intersection. As far as plan improvement they do exist-. These improvements are planned for 1990 and will be affected by the Capital Improvement Budget constraints imposed upon Olmsted County. It is possible that 1990 will not include those p.la 1 Agenda Item 1 11 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 2574A Adjourned Meeting No. 22 - January 21, 1986 improvements on governmental budgets which are all being tightened at present. In any event, 1990 or soon after this is certainly not the immediate future. The safety of the community should not be treatene for this long a time. Part u, which is the last part, "Adequate measures have been taken or proposed to control offensive.odors, fumes, dust, noise, vibration, or lighting which would otherwise disturb the use of neighboring property". The intent is to protect the right of the neighbors. An improtant point must be made here. No qualifications are stated as to the particular neighbors or their physical location in respect to the zoned area. Admitting that the nearest neighbors would be affected the most does not make the issue any less serious. Indeed, it can be stated that the legal protection here is directed more at those neighbors most affected by the proposed usage. SuperAmerica addresses only two specific points here; lighting and the public address system. Lighting is cited as a requirement realizing that the problem of vandalism and violence associated with a 24-hour business of this kind. Public address noise is defended by a State Statute requirement. The problem that I have here is the fact that it is the station's res- ponsibility to meet the requirement; not the neighbors. Obviously, in a situation of conflict proposed business sites should be sensitive to not only the.legal responsibility to the State but as well the legal responsibility or, not necessarily legal responsibility, but the res- ponsibility in those zoning situations which intend to protect neigh- borhood rights. Those situations which might disturb neighboring pro- perty, any and all, can be controlled by the business. Here are some facts concerning a 24-hour service station of the proposed size in this eighborhood. The 24-hour lighting would be offensive, especially to hose nearest the station. Offensive odors and fumes, gasoline exhaust would exist with a station of this size. Offensive noises from cars aid rucks:stopping and starting -their engines, entering and exiting the station exist. Of course, the PA system is also relevant to this point. The important point, though, is not only will these conditions exist but that they will not be able to be controlled by the business directly. In summary, Paula, Bernie and myself have presented a zoning issue her o arrive at an equitable decision the 37th Street neighbors feel that ou, the Council, must address the B-lb intent. An interesting argument as proposed during the Planning and Zoning Board and I would like to apitalize on that idea. Next foil., please. Perhaps you can see this if you can't I am basically describing it. If you look at the first .age of Chapter 65 of the Rochester Zoning Code, the legislative in- tent for each zone is spelled out. B-la and B-lb zones are distinct from B-2 and B-4 in.that B-la and B-lb consider neighbors rights. B-1 specifically states that a higher priority for neighbors must exist. In the case of B-lb that priority is shared, if you will, I quote: "the enhancement of both business districts and adjacent residential is.tricts". The proposed station does not provide for the enhancement f the residential district. To close, I would like to present a fina umerical analysis prepared by Peter Shu of the neighborhood, 15th renue specifically. It calculates the families per week that would frequent this station. Now, I would like to remind you of a comment that I made on the first part and that was that the Barton -Ashman Repo t tated 85 to 90 percent of the traffic would be existing traffic. Look Agenda Item RECORD -OF. OFFICIALPROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 2574B Adimirnert Meeting No_ 29 - January 21, 1926 at those calculations right there. What it shows you is that assumi two cars per family, 133 cars.per pump, 15 pumps, seven days in a we you come out with 6982 families using that station in a week. Now w are going'to take a conservative estimate that there are three residents per family. We come out with 20,946 residents using that station. That's one-third of the population of this city. This neighborhood does not wish to accept the liability for 33 percent of the population for a gas station. We hope that we have helped in your decision. This concludes the presentation by the 37th Street Neighbors Association. Wishing to be heard was Brian Carlson of 1519 7th Avenue N.ld. He does not live in the vicinity, however, he is a member of the Luthera Church that is located on the next piece of property. He is concerned about the pedestrian traffic and is concerned about this establishment becoming a hang-out for kids. If they havea large amount of green landscaping, this would be tempting. He is opposed to this as an individual, and is not speaking on behalf of the Church. Wishing to be heard was Bob Suk, Attorney for SuperAmerica. Mr. Suk stated that he personally spoke with members of the Church and they worked out a solution to the ingress and egress. He stated they were in favor of this. Mr. Suk again stated that Mr. Carlson spoke on behalf of himself, not the Church. Mr. Suk referred to the booklet that was distributed to the Council ,and stated that the SuperAmerica Station has complied with -the zoning regulations of the City. He stated that the Zoning Board'of Appeals spent quite a bit of time addressing this situation and they came to the conclusion that SuperAmerica did indeed comply. He stated that SuperAmerica has been a good neighbor in other areas of Rochester as well as the State of Minnesota. Alderman Bluhm referred to Roy Larson of the MnDOT and questioned what improvements might be planned for the future of this intersectio . Mr. Suk stated that he does not know of any improvements planned, but referred to the Barton -Ashman Report which states that no problem exists at this intersection and, if this development should be approv d, they do not foresee a traffic problem. Having no one further wishing to be heard, President Postier closed the hearing. Wishing to be heard was Alderman Solinger. I would like to say that I have been aware of this project from its inception and have followed it through the Planning Commission and through the Zoning Board of Appeals. It was interesting to watch the process and also in deter- mining what I felt. I support the neighborhood and determined that it was quite interesting, especially at the Zoning Board of Appeals. It was the first time in history since I have been on this Council that I felt it necessary to intercede and make a presentation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on an issue. But I did that and as Mr. Murra RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 2574C Adjourned Meeting No. 22 - January 21, 1986 . Agenda Item B-2 reported before it turned out kind of upsetting to the fact that the were no votes the first time around adequate enough for the people' present. The first thing that concerned me about the whole project Was the dedication of the ten -foot of right-of-way by the developer from the entire stretch of 15th Arenue to 18th Arenue and the staff requesting them to dedicate to the point to -where they even went to the Church and have a purchase agreement with the Church to purchase land from them just so they could dedicate some of this to use for turn -lane movements on 37th Street. It is quite irregular, as was displayed before, Curt, about the plat that is on there, we have a copy of it in our packets but we can't make out what it said. I have one here that you can read and he.reproduced that before. In the platting process no access was to be granted on 37th Street whatsoeve on this parcel of property. And that was what was told to us in the previous PUD that was on the property; staff had told us that we shou not approve any access on 37th. And that was the way the Council re- acted at that time in approving the PUD that was on this site. To go on, I do think, for the record,.that the health, safety and welfare of the residents is being jeopardized by the 24-hour operation of thi B-lb use including the lighting and the activity on the increased traffic in the area, especially the safety. I believe that the B-lb has differences and I think that it should be looked at as Mr. Murray says, that B-lbs have some different meanings for different areas and I think that's why conditional uses were attached on it. If you cannot attach enough conditions to a parcel that unacceptable on both sides, maybe on the developer's side or the neighbor's side, I think that it should be denied and I think that we, as a Council, have the right to deny it but giving adequate reason to do that...So, through the process the Planning Commission had denied this and the Board of Appeals, by the split vote, approved of it. I would.al.so like to have entered as a record my reasons for the denial, everything that I just said, plus, if it could be recorded, the testmonies of Paula, Bernie and Curt. With that, the.only other thing I have is that in talking with the neighbors, had somewhat talked about the school crossing issue. There is no guard there at the present time but this is also an intersection highly used by the kids going to Gage School. Wishing to be heard was President Postier. I do, then, because I will be voting.on the opposite side, probably, must have for the record my reasons for doing same. I was involved with this piece of property back when Bob Robertson claimed the property and wanted to put something in there in a commercial way and.he came in and asked this Council to go ahead with a PUD, a planned unit development. I voted for that at that time. I thought it was the proper way be- cause we could control it at that time and he was going to put in a real estate.center, even by that name, I guess that was the name of his property at that time or his business, and I was in favor of it. I don't believe we did have any objection. And the next zoning change, as I recall, was a B-lb. I'm not fully in my mind involved in that but, again, I was under the impression that we were having a proposal before us at that time for a mini -mall or something similar to it, which, again, did not seem to be too objectionable to the ra Agenda Item B-2 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 2574D Adjourned Meeting No. 22 - January 21, 1986 neighborhood. I.want to expand, as has been brought forth before, Mr Murray, I think our B-lb zoning is absolutely atrocious. I would hop that no matter how this comes out that we go back and have that thing changed, and why I did say that. B-lb is a nicghborhood business permitted. I don't consider a SuperAmerica gas station with that amount of pumps and getting that many cars by there, and I look at huge numbers, as being a neighborhood -supplied business. I. look at it as being supplied from all over the City of Rochester and outside of Rochester. So if you would make the point that whether B-lb is allowing this, it possibly is,,but I do what to make the point that 1 disagree that that is a neighborhood business because of the size of it. I do want to say that the Department of Transportation in Roy Larson, has guided my feelings over many, many years. We have negotiated with the State Highway Department in many things here in the City of Rochester and we have accepted his statements, many of them, because he's certainly well aware of the problems of our street if they are travelled by a large amount of people here in the City of Rochester. I, therefore, say that I put some faith in his statement. I hope I have enough there depending on how this vote comes out, that if we have to go to court on it we will have a chance to win it and that's no reflection on anyone. I know (tape changed at this point). Alderman Bluhm stated that Roy Larson's letter had information that he had seen lately that stated the County would be willing to work with the developer in improving this intersection. - Alderman Powers stated that the intersection on the corner of ll.th Avenue and 4th Street S.E. (St. Francis.Church) has as much traffic as an intersection can handle and they do not have a traffic problem.. Alderman Powers thinks this gas station would cause less traffic than a mall development. Tom Moore, Planning Director, stated that the number of gas pumps could be limited if the Council wished to do so. Fred Suhler, City Attorney, also stated that the number of pumps coul be limited by authority of the Council. However, a convenience store is not a facility that can be limited in its usage. Alderman Strain agreed with the neighborhood that this zone of B-lb is to intense for the neighborhood. Alderman Duffy stated that a business of some sort is bound to locate in this piece of property. He does not favor this project, but does favor some small business in the area. Alderman Strain was concerned about the access to 37th Street and wondered if this was recorded on the plat if the.Council had to abide by this forever. Mr. Suhler, City Attorney, stated that the County has some relief on the control and it would be up to them to grant such a request. I I RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF; ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 2574E _Adjourned Meeting No_ 22 - January 21, 1986 Agenda Item B-2 Having no further discussion by the Council,.President Postier called for a motion. Aldermen Solinger moved, Allen seconded, to deny the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals (The Zoning Board of Appeals approved this zone change). Upon roll call vote, Aldermen Allen, Duffy, Solinger, Strain and President Postier voted aye. Ayes (5). Aldermen Bluhm and Powers voted nay. Nays (2). Motion carried. C-1 Bluhm moved, Solinger second to approve Doris Folger to the Committee on Urban Environment (CUE). She lives outside of the City, but the City Ordinance allows one person living outside the City to serve. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. P F THE C UNCIL RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS COMMON CO O O O CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Agenda Item Agenda Item D-1 E-1 E-2 E- 3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL .CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 22 - January 21, 1986 Bob Boyd of.1212 lst St. N. W., Manager of Park Towers was present and wished to be heard regarding the relocation of the Osco Drug Store in the downtown area. Mr. Boyd presented a petition signed by 550 citizens of the downtown area in favor of having a drug/ grocery store located in the downtown area. It has been noted that the present facility ( Osco Drug ) may not reopen if a development project is established in the downtown area, Mr. Boyd stated the need for such a store and urged the Council to consider a facility.such as thi.s if a development project is approved. President Postier stated that he received a letter of itent from Gus Chafoulias stating that such a facility would be considered if the D-5 project could be developed._ Alderman Powers also,received this assurance. Duffy moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 22-86 approving the Fire Services Contract with the Federal Medical Center for an annual fee of $5,000.00. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. No motion was made to reconsider the request for a revocable permit at 426 2nd Avenue S. W. No action was taken at this meeting. Duffy moved, Powers second to approve an amount of $2,100 or 50% whichever is less, for Newbridge streetscape.improvem;ents. This is pending a final determination on eligibility of Community Developmen-. Block Grant funds.. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Duffy moved, Strain second to approve the following bills submitted by the Rochester Airport Company: 1. Partial payment No. 3 to Alvin E.Benike, Inc. ( Hangar Project J 6923) $34,943.75 2. Architect's Fees for Miller Dunwiddie Associates $1,907.10 J.6923 3. Installation domestic hot water heating conversion - Service Building J.6939 with Rochester Plumbing and Heating in the amount of $5,030.00. Ayes (7), Nays (0),Motion carried. Solinger moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution.No. 23-86 approvinc the Third Amendment of the Ozark Air Lines, Inc. lease. The lease eliminates the custodial charges on the Ozark leased space. The Ozarl employees will provide their own custodial duties. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. Strain moved, Bluhm second to adopt Resolution No. 24-86 approving the Operating Lease.with Bemidji Airlines and the Rochester Municipal Airport. The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authoriz d to sign said agreement. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Strain moved, Solinger second to approve the following licenses & bonds: Request received from Little Caesar's Pizza Restaurant at Barclay 2576 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 22 - january 21, 1926 Agenda Item E-7 E-9 E-10 E-11 Square for approval of an application for a Singl.e Dance license for Thursday evening, Jan. 16, 1986. This was given preliminary approval by the Council. Request received from Jerome Rein, Roch. for approval of a Master Installer's License for Heating, Ventilatin, and Air -Conditioning for the period.ending December 31, 1986. Request received from Greenway Coop Service Company at 3610 Third Avenue N.W. for a license to sell cigarettes Over -the -Counter at the establishment. Request received from Tomas Pontiac and Honda Dealership for an Auction permit for Saturday, Jan. 25, 1986. The following are renewal licenses and will be listed at the end of the minutes. The bonds will also be listed. Gambling (1); Heating, Ventilating & Air-Conditioninq Contractors (2) - Master Installers (2) - Master Plumbers (1), Sewers and Drains (3), Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter, Driveways (1). Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Powers moved, Strain second to.approve the .issuance of a Sunday Liquor License to John T. Incorporated dba Rascals Nightclub at 8.South Broadway. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Strain moved, Duffy second to approve the Accounts Payable (list filed in the City Clerk's Office ) in the amount of $827,218.51. This is semi-monthly. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Bluhm moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 25-86 approving the sale of the General Obligation Improvement Bonds, in an amount not to exceed $6,500,000. Bids will be opened at 11:00 A.M. on February 18, 1986.and considered by the Common Council at 1:00 P.M. on February 18, 1986. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried.. Powers moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 26-86 designating the First National Bank of Rochester, the Norwest Bank of Rochester, The Marquette Bank and Trust Company of Rochester, The Rochester Bank and Trust Company, Midwest Federal Savings and Loan, First Minnesota Federal Savings Bank, Twin City Federal -Savings Bank, and Home Federal Savings Bank as depositories of the public funds of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. Resolution No. 27-86 authorizing facsimile signature and endorsement of Certificates of Deposits: The check against the General Account at Marquette Bank and Trust Co. of Rochester. and the payroll account at First National Bank of Rochester will bear facsimile signatures. Assignment of -Securities: Resolution No. 28-86 Additional Securities in the amount of -0- in collateral in lieu of.a depository bond and releases in.the amount of $707,399.29 from the Norwest Bank Rochester,Mn. Resolution No. 29-86 Additional Securities in the amount of $550,000. in collateral in lieu of a depository bond and releases in the amount C� of $1,735,000.00 from the First National Bank, Roch. Mn. Agenda Item E-11 E-12 E-13 E-14 i E-15 E-16 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL �5�� CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No..,22 - January 21, 1986 Resolution No. 30-86 Additional Securities in the amount of -0- in collateral in lieu of a.depository bond.and releases in the amoun of $240,482.59 from .the First Minnesota Savings Bank of Rochester, Minnesota. Resolution No..31-86 Additional. Securities in the amount of -0- in collateral in lieu of a depository,bond and releases in the amount of $1,656,296.00 from Home Federal Savings and Loan Assoc. Rochester, Minnesota Resolution No. 32-86.Additional Securities in the amount of $2,693,66 in collateral in lieu of a depository bond and releases in the amount of -0-•from the.Twin City Federal Savings Bank, Rochester, Minnesota. Resolution No. 33-86 Additional Securities in the amount of $9,291,293.18 in collateral in lieu of a depository bond and releases in the amount of.$16,653,879.05 from the Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association Rochester, Minnesota. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Duffy moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 34-86 awarding the low bid in the amount of $62,540. with alternate No. 1 for Remodeling City Hall. This was awarded to Glanton Construction Company, Rochester, Minnesota. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Powers moved, Solinger second to Adopt Resolution No. 35-86, 36-86 and 37-86 authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids on Suburban type wagon for the Engineering Div. Public Services Dept. One portable air compressor for the Street and.Alley Division and Two 1/2 ton pickup trucks one each for the sewer collection and Traffic Eng. Bids to be opened at 11:00 A.M. on February 11, 1986. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Bluhm moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 38-86 adopting the following changes in the Personnel Policies as follows: 1. The State of Minnesota has passed legislation making the addition -of Martin Luther King's Birthday as a holiday a requirement We have agreed in recent contract agreements to add the holiday and this change is necessary. 2. The Unused Sick Leave Program -which has been added for those employees covered by contracts/meet and confer agreements. This would add the program to the Personnel Policies for all employees not coveredby a labor agreement. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Al.len moved, Bluhm second to adopt Resolution No. 39-86 approving the labor agreement with the International Association of Firefighter for the calendar years of 1986-1987. Ayes (7), Nays.(0).Motion carried. Bluhm moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 40-86 approving qW RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting,No. 22 - January 21, 1986 Agenda Item E-16 a meet and confer agreement with the Rochester Police Captains for the calendar years 1986-1987. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-17 Solinger moved, Strain second to adopt.Resolution No. 41-86 approvin a laboragreement with the Rochester Police Benevolent Association for the calendar years of 1986-1987. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-18 Duffy moved, Bluhm.second to adopt Resolution No. 42-86 approving a meet and confer agreement with the Rochester Police Dispatchers for the calendar years 1986-1987. Ayes (7), Nays(0).Motion carried. E-19 Solinger moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution 43-86 approving a meet and confer agreement with Rochester Parking Control Officers for the calendar years 1986-1987. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-20 Strain moved, Bluhm.second to adopt Resolution No. 44-86 approving a labor agreement with the Painte.rt Local No. 681 for the calendar years 1986-1987. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-21 Allen moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 45-86 approving a labor agreement with International Union.of Operating Engineers. Local No. 49, Street and Alley for the calendar years 1986-1.987. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-22 Duffy moved, Powers second to adopt Resolution No. 46-86 approving a labor agreement with Engineering Technicians at Public Services for the calendar years 1986-1987. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-23 Powers moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 47-86 approving a labor agreement with Inspector's Association - Building and Safety for the calendar years 1986-1987. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-24 Strain moved, B,luhm second to adopt Resolution No. 48-86 approving a labor agreement with International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 49 , Park and Recreation for the calendar years 1986-1987. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-25 Duffy moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 49-86 authorizing the Director of Employee Relations to extend to those employees of the City not covered by any labor contract or meet and confer agree- ment the same changes in benefits and wages that the most appropriate contract or agreement would provide effective Jan. 1, 1986. Covered under this agreement is listed below-:, Legal Technician, City Attorney's Office, Sr. Clerk Typist, Attorney' Office. Personnel Office - Employee Services.Coordinator and Personnel Aide; Police Dept., Sr. Clerk Typist Criminal Records and Sr. Clerk Typist Crime Coder, Clerk Steno (2) , Data Entry Operator/Clerk Typist and Clerk Typist. Fire Dept., Secretary. Public Library Custodian and Head Custodian. City Hall, Head Custodian and Police Dept. Master Mechanic. School Crossing Guards $.20/hr - 1-1-86. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. F� 1 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA `�� `�� Adjourned Meeting No. 21 - January 21, 1986 Agenda Item E-26 Duffy moved, Bluhm second to adopt Resolution No. 50-86 approving the Annexing certain lands in an Orderly Annexation of the 1986 portion of the Orderly Annexation Agreement for the Golden Hill Area. This consists of approximately 74 acres. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. This also includes Sewer and Water service to the a E-27 Strain moved, Powers second to approve the Preliminary Plat No. 85- 21 Salem Sound.subject to the four conditions: 1. Only one access from C.S.A.H. # 25 to a private road that serves all seven lots,.and located at Lots 3 and 4. 2. Provide a 10 foot utility easement along the front of the lots as requested by Northwestern Bell Telephone; 3. Provide adequate utility easements to be shown on the final plan 4-. The -County will vacate the right-of-way for C.S.A.H. # 8 located within Lot 1. E-28 Solinger moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 51-86 receiving the feasibilty report and order a hearing to be held on February 18, 1986 on Project No!: 7804-3-86 J 8937 Watermain to serve Salem Sound lying in a part of the Southeast. Quarter Section 9,-Township 106 North, Range 14 West. Ayes (7), Nays.(0).Motion carried. E-29 Duffy moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 52-86 approving a proposal by McGhie and Betts, Inc. for Engineering Services on Project No. 8507-1-85 J 8921 - Grading, Base, Concrete Curb and Gutter, Bituminous Surfacing, Sanitary Sewer, Watermains, Storm Sewer and Service Connections in Viking Hills First Sub. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-30 Duffy moved, Bluhm second to adopt Resolution No. 53-86 approving and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the1986 Management Incentive contract with Rochester City Lines. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-31 Bluhm moved,,Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 54-86 approving and amending the Paragraph (2.5 ) of the Sec. B of No Parking Zones to read: (2.5) North Broadway on the East side from 6th St. to a point 210 feet, more or less , South of Sixth Street and on the West side from.5th Street to 6th Street, at all times. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-32 Sol-inger moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 55-86 approving the adding of Paragraph 128.5 to Sec. B_No Parking Zones to read: (128.5) 6th St. N. W. on -the south side -from llth Ave. N. W. to a point 400 feet, more or less, west of llth Avenue - at all times. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-33 -Duffy moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 56-86 approving the adding of paragraph 14 to Sec. H Zone F Limited Parking Zones "2 hr parking of the comprehensive parking resolution to read: (14) 14th Street N. W. on the south side from Valleyhigh Drive to a point 250 feet , more or less, East of Valleyhigh Dr. -Monday thru Fri. between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Ayes (7),Nays (0).Moti.on carried. !a. I RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No..22 - January 21, 1986 Agenda Item E-34 Strain moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 57-86 approving the adding of paragraph (121.5) of Section B, No Parking Zones to read: (121.5) Fifth Avenue S. E. on the west side from 16th St. to a point 350 feet, more or less, south between 7:30 A.M. and 5:30 P.M. Monday thru Saturday.. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-35, Powers moved, Solinger second to adopt Resolution No. 58-86 approvin the Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with Shamrock Enterprises, Inca for Project No.-8315 to provide for an increase in the contract not to exceed $1,197.88. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-36 Strain moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 59-86 approving the payment of extra work covered by Supplemental Work on Project 540- 85 J 8912 - Sewer and Water on East Frontage Road T.H. No. 52 in the amount of $1,111.50. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-37 Solinger moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 60-86 approvin and authorizing payment in the amount of $1;678.95 for extra work covered i,n Project No. 8409 J 2213.- 55th Street N. W. 18th Avenue N. W. to.T.H. 52. Ayes (7); Nays (0).Motion carried. E-38 Solinger moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 61-86 authoriz- ing payment in the amount of $7,038..08 for extra work on Project No. 6204-3-85 J 8889 - 4th Street S. W.; 2nd Avenue to 6th Avenue. This is Supplement No. 4. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-39 Allen moved, Strain second to adopt theofollowing resolutions by the Public Utility Board. Resolution No. 62-86 approving an engineering services agreement wit R.W. Beck & Associates for services to assist RPU in developing a five year distribution expansion plan. The amount not to exceed $45,000. Resolution No. 63-86 approving an Amending No. 2 with Peoples Natural Gas Co. for Special Agency Gas for the North Broadway Plant and Silver Lake Plant. The price shall be as set forth in the Special Atency Agreement transmitted Nov. 8, 1985. Resolution No. 64-85 approving an agreement with Peoples Natural Gas Co. for temporary firm service for the North Broadway Plan. The rate should be as set forth in Resolution No. 64-86. Ayes-(7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-40 Allen moved, Strain second to table the request for a creation of a One -Way Street pattern on (8) the alley between First Avenue S. W. and 2nd Avenue S. W. from 4th Street S. W. to 5th Street S. W., One - Way for southbound traffic. Council desired more information on this request. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-41 Allen moved, Powers second to approve the following changes to be made in the contract for (82) suits of brigade - type F� Agenda Item E-41 G-1 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL �5�� CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 22 - January 21, 1986 protective clothing. Clarey's Safety Equipment bid and was awarded this bid. 1. Use Scotchlite two-tone trim rather than Reflexlite. The cost is $12.50 per set for a total of $1,025.00. 2. Add -numbers to the -coat and pants for identification. The cost is $1.35 for a total of $418.50. 3. The specifications called for a coat length of 27" to 30". When the men are measured it is expected that some will require coats in excess of 30". The cost is an additional 3% or $6.45 per coat. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. An Ordinance designating certain lands as part of Rural Service District Amending Ordinance No. 1466 Sec. 4 and 6; to provide for a new Taxing ratio and for future additions thereto. This was given its second reading. Strain moved,_Al_len second to adopt the Ordinance as read. Ayes (7), Nays (0).:"Motion carried.. An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester certain lands (un- platted ) in Rochester Township - 1416 Woodland Dr. S. W. - 1.03 acres adjacent to Baihly Woodland Sub. This was given its second reading. Bluhm moved, Allen second to adopt the Ordinance as read. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester certain unplatted land in Haverhill Township - North of Parkwood Hills - Harvey Ratzlaff - 9.16 acres in size. was given its second reading. Allen --moved, Bluhm second to adopt the Ordinance as read. Ayes (7), Nays (0) .Motion carried. Strain moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 65-86 providing for the Indemnification of Officials and Employees Pursuan to Law. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Solinger. moved, Allen.second to instruct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution stating the position of the Council on the Appeal # 85-4 - An Appeal of the Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals which approved an appeal to the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission which denied a Conditional Use Permit for an Automotive Service Station in the B-lb ( Neighborhood Business) Zoning District. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Strain moved, Powers second to remove the request for a split of Assessments/ Willow Creek 1st to Pinewood First from the table. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Strain moved, Allen second to approve the rellocation of the assessments for projects J 8651 and 8563 to the 76 lots in Pinewood First and Second Sub. and the remaining lots in Willow Creek. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. Public Services is directed to split the assessments. 2582 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE .COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 22 - January 21, 1986. Agenda Item Having no further business, Allen moved, Strain.second to adjourn the meeting. Ayes (7), Nays (0).Motion carried. ty Clerk Information 1-21-86 1. Committee of the Whol Meeting Minutes from Meetings of Jan. 6, 1986 and January 13, 1986. k