That they bring back, I don't know, but it's a big concern and I really would like to see some clarity in that.
And really in the ordinance, you know, we're going to adopt a park semester plan, a complaint update.
But until those plans have meet on the bones and specific, you know, recommendations for ordinance, language changes, that's where we need to get with us at planning and zoning commission.
we've often weighed here. He knows that we've often brought up that we'd like to initiate some
text amendments at Planning and Zoning Commission, but we're very quickly and often shot
down and please wait, please wait and we're told it's just we can't wait. Development pressure
is just it continues and it makes our job harder, it makes the developer probably bring more
brings more confusion to them in terms of trying to figure all this out and we don't want to
I know in speaking on Planning and Zoning Commission we're often seen as kind of a roadblock
or a table and that's not what we're trying to be.
We're trying to judge based on the information that's given to us in the
zorning ordinance that's before us and I think we do a good job of that.
All right.
There you go.
Is there any one else?
Okay.
I'm here to talk about what was the pipeline and I didn't bring my glasses.
I'm going to put this up here.
And you can see where our Rochester's going to be wrapped in pipeline.
And I looked at the pipeline because they were very proud of it.
It's the same as Tarzan's pipeline, but they're going to be running the none Tarzan's
pipeline, gas through it, they said, I am, you have to tell us your name first.
I'm a fairy, so those of you that don't know me.
Thank you.
And there's a blue line running right through the city.
Can you see what that is?
Here's the legend.
Can you see the legend?
I mean, racist.
what can you see the legend I want them to see the legend there's a blue line can
you see what the legend says a blue line is what is
it I didn't bring my glasses
I'm in a real big disadvantage so I have to count on you to be interactive right
or they're trying to get in focus.
Close town.
Okay.
I want you to be sure for this.
I'll do my best.
You've got glass and big glass.
I'll be out here.
Okay.
I looked online.
Kinder Morgan operates all the pipeline.
I'm going to give them different means.
Kinder Morgan has plans to wrap this city in Pipeline.
And they might start out with the non-highly toxic
but they have plans for the toxic real hardcore
tar sands to eventually wrap around here and feed down
into Texas and then Mexico and then I don't know where it's going.
Now, you can sit back and you can say
it's out of our hands, but it's your district, it's your area.
And you have a lot more power than you think you do.
There are states that actually stopped the tar sands pipeline.
If you're going down a road and you're going to hit a stem line or a little car,
you're going to hit a little car because you're going to get smashed by the stem line.
And what the stem line is are people that said, no, there's no way this is going to happen.
And it's more of a hassle than they care to take on.
So I am asking this city, and I'll go before the county to be that stem line.
And don't say that you don't have the power or you're just trying to get through your elected position and you're just trying to get through your life.
And this is more than you can think about,
wrap your mind around or deal with.
Because it's not if there is a spill, it's when there is a spill.
And Kinder Morgan, which feeds all the pipelines from Alberta, has a horrible record, hundreds of violations.
And when they hit a suburb for a city, it isn't a spill, it's a major disaster that can never be corrected.
And it's proprietary stuff.
They're not going to start out with tar sands.
We're going to start out with the stuff that you're not going to hit the ceiling over.
But that's what the long range plan is for this wrap around deal that they're doing.
because I've checked the Kinder Morgan maps, and they may not start out there, but they're
going to go there. So, I think that you need to get creative or just believe that that
pledge of allegiance that we took has justice for all, and act like it, and come out strong,
so that it's too big of a headache for them to handle. Because if you're going to be a bigger
headache than they can handle, and this is going to get in the press, and you're going to be revealing
stuff they don't need it. They can't handle it. So I'm telling you you can use your power now
or you can look back in hindsight and say it would have taken a lot of guts but if we had done
that we wouldn't be in this pickle because you're going to be in a pickle. All right. Do I have
any people here that are concerned? Do I have any people here majorly concerned? I think it's something
that we dig into, we learn more about it and try to find out what the issues are and educate
ourselves.
And then we come back with a response.
Once I have my plans in, it's in, and there's a thing called a global initiative, and
our part of the global initiative is getting tarasans and frexans out to the world.
Now they'll say, well, what are you going to heat with, well, the Saudis have figured out
to fulfill the energy needed without poisoning water. We have cars planned here. So even though
a lot of it's going to be in the township, some of it's going to run through the city. What is
that blue line? The blue line appears to me, and I'll provide this information to the city clerk
so we can post it. I want to hear what the blue line I don't have blessed. It says preferred route.
preferred route is right straight to the city isn't it most of it's not in the city right now
okay is any event running right straight to the city there's a there's a little bit in the city
down by 48th street south west but most of it's in most of it's not in the city and I also don't know if this is a
um a gas pipeline or a pipeline care uh capable of carrying uh well just so you know we're just about
out of natural gas and we're getting into tarsans and breakfast they might start with uh
I mean, it's all considered natural gas at this point.
You need to know, and I say, it's all natural gas.
Frap gas is considered natural now.
Tarsans is considered natural now, but they assured me
that it's going to be the kind that this city can react to,
because if it's Tarsans, at a later date, or it's Frap,
there's only the warning people that can clean it
is the corporations who sell this product by saying,
and if there's this still, you'll make money on the cleanup.
That's what they tell their investors,
because only they can clean it up.
Okay. Well, we're going to move on.
We've got your information.
And we will take a look at it.
Well, you're not going to keep that.
Because that's only one I had.
I've been told that you can't get it back.
But all of that is available online.
You go to Minnesota energy.
And there's that much information that I threw away.
Because all I'm interested in, what's your route.
And then I got online and I Google.
Kinder Morgan, that's all you have to research.
Just Kinder Morgan.
Because I handle it all.
Okay. All right. Thank you very much. All right. I send a copy to the city clerk. Yes, sir.
I know time is waiting here. So my name is Dennis Davy and I'm a 519-6th Street Southwest
Rochester Minnesota. And I'm here as the President of the Southwest Neighborhood Association. And I just
wanted to many times we get up and we talked to y'all about challenges and issues that we may
be having in our neighborhood. But I want to do it up tonight to thank President Staver and
city staff for contacting me last Friday with regard to something you're going to be seeing in
other business tonight regarding the 501 project. I thought it was very thoughtful of them
to run it by us for any comments we have and we're in support of activating second avenue.
I think it's a nice, nice change and we'll make the neighborhood in the city downtown better
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
All right.
We are at the end of our open comment period, but come to remember, build a back
wanted, make a quick comment about an upcoming event.
Put on by the National Community Resource Center on Wednesday, night, July 20, from
6 to 830.
There's an evening of inspiration and gratitude to support the Rochester Police Department
on the County Sheriff's Department in the Rochester Fire Department.
It'll be out at the International Events Center.
If you're interested, you can call 507-254-1265.
And I'll have that information here after the meeting
if anybody's interested.
But I'm by some of our youth program groups,
and they're trying to show support for our local law enforcement
and fire.
All right, thank you.
And I think I don't know if you mentioned the nominal fee $20.
and it very recovers the dinner so it's not a fundraiser they emphasize it's not a fundraiser
it just meant to show appreciation and this was have been in the planning since I think April or May
well before some of the tragic events that have occurred in recent weeks across our nation so
contact us to build a back all right with that I will call the meeting to order and ask the city clerk to conduct role
Council President Staver.
Councillor and Bill DeBac.
Here, can we?
Here.
Rascal.
And Mayor Brady.
All right.
Thank you.
We have no letters in petition or petition this evening.
So we'll move to our consent agenda.
I have Council Member Bill DeBac.
I'm sorry.
Council Member Wojik, pulling D3.
Council Members.
Hickie and Wojik, pulling D7.
Council Member Wojik, the 15 and 16.
Council Members Build a Back and Wojik, the 21.
And please note that D24 is stricken at the request of the applicant, so that item will not be considered this evening.
Were there any others?
Hearing none, I would entertain a motion for approval in block of items D1 and 2.
4 through 6, 8 through 14, 17 through 20, and 22 through 23.
I have a motion by Mr. Builder-back. Second by Mr. Hickey. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries.
Item D3 is a request for funding for Recreation Center Improvement, Mr. Wojik.
So we've revisited this project a number of times and we several times allocated more money to it.
And I sent a note to the city administrator, I don't know if the rest of the council received that.
But a little bit concerned about pouring more money into a project that's nearing 50% over budget by my colleague,
or I'm calling everything.
But I certainly understand why I would want to replace the gym floor or that's something that we have to do.
The pool seating, I kind of get why it would be a good time to do it.
The North Rink expansion, I mean, ultimately that's over $100,000 coming from the park
reserves to do that, and I, you know, I just don't, I haven't heard anything from the park
board.
I don't know if the park board has, as discussed at this point, but I'm concerned as to
whether or not adding a sixth ring for hockey at, you know, it comes to the top of the list
for what those funds should be used for, so I'm a little bit concerned about that one,
and I understand there's some matching funds in there,
but still an extra $100,000 that we're putting into this project.
That's pretty substantially over budget at this point.
So that's my concern anyway.
All that staff respond.
Mr. Wooden, good to come in.
Regarding the park board, this was discussed
for our last park board meeting,
where we had been requested
through the user groups and came forward through administration, so we informed them that it was moving forward.
And as far as the three projects you mentioned, the June floor and the seating, the questions were more along the lines of the North Rink.
We, in Dale, became issues here.
He can talk about the specifics, but this has been something that has been brought up several
times through the life of the Recreation Center to get more use out of that North Rink.
Right now, when we use both rings, seating is just obstacle and having the area for the
the banches teams to set, would just maximize the use of that.
Dale, do you have specifics on how that would alleviate that traffic here in that you
discussed?
I'm talking about the persistent traffic.
I think the North Rink expansion, Michael's right.
We do have five other indoor arremas.
This is the only one of the six that does not have players, benches, penalty boxes, or scores
table.
It does have a score board when people do play games from senior games to return the robin or youth hockey games.
They stand in the walkway between the two ranks, which then does not allow traffic to flow between the two ranks to get to the gymnasium.
Or if you get to that ice sheet, it is very, very overcrowded in that area.
If you've ever played senior hockey there, you stand right there in that gap.
and then people from the other ranks are shooting pucks right at that wall, it's extremely loud.
It would also help the figure skaters. It would give them more room.
They use that rank about 75% of the time.
It would give them room to house all their equipment on the other side of the rank,
rather than between the two ranks.
And again, we did go out between Utah key,
Magic of Foundation and the Utah key foundation came up with a hundred thousand dollars
the donations. And that's going to $100,000 to $213. And I guess the question I turn around to the
Marks department, is this, you know, utilizes a substantial amount of the funds that you have. Is this the highest priority for the parks department?
In regards to this facility, it was our desire to get these three projects complete by the time we opened the doors.
When we broke ground and ran into the challenges with the waste site and the dump site,
as best as that, of course, ate up our contingency.
And as you mentioned, Mr. Roderick, we did.
We have been back to request funds.
I just looking at the user groups that are coming forward and the fundraising, the fact that
with if we were able to complete these three projects, it would maximize use the facility
which was the goal of the renovations to begin with.
We felt it was worth bringing this forward and being able to do that so that when we do open
doors, we've got a facility that will be able to handle the crowds and I know the aquatic
seating and all of them will do that,
including the bump out in the June 4.
Anyone else, Mr. Mayor?
There are many, many decades ago when I was on the figure skating board there, I had
a question that kind of, are they then in favor of this expansion and are they helping fund
of it. They are in favor. They did not come up with any funding. Okay. Their club is in no position.
I don't think right now to donate any additional funds. They also had to, you know, they we did their
locker rooms. They paid for all internal improvements to their locker rooms and to their new office.
And I think that pretty much trained them at that point. So. All right. Thank you.
I have two daughters that are figure skaters I can vouch for that comment.
All right. Any other comments or questions? I would entertain a motion.
I have a comment.
What's means?
I am in favor of all three of these items and the funding.
I think we have a great facility.
It's going to be one of the renowned facilities in our area.
What's needed when I saw the pictures of the people that we're standing in a family because they couldn't give him a place to sit.
This does not belong in terms of excellence.
And so I am very much in favor of all three of these items and the funding that was with Mundo.
Is that a motion?
I have a motion by Ms. Main, second by Mr. Campion. Any discussion?
What point of order, sir?
Sir, sir.
I would be correct motion to be to, because there's three separate questions being asked here,
three separate projects, a motion to divide the question.
It would be an order. I'll make a motion to divide the question separating out number three
All right, is there's not just that require a second pardon?
I don't know if that even requires that's super seed mr. City turning. That's super seed
Requires a second I beg a pardon. It does not require a second. It is not debatable
at a majority vote is required.
All right.
We have a motion to divide the question.
All in favor indicate by saying aye.
All right.
And the opposed.
All right.
So that motion to divide the question passes six one I believe.
I heard that correctly with Ms. Mane voting nay.
So now we have three separate questions.
The first we would entertain is the gym floor replacement of approval.
Second.
Motion by Mr. Rogik, second by Ms. Meens.
Any discussion?
All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Any abstentions?
Motion carries now.
A motion to consider the additional pool seating.
OK.
Motion by Mr. Ruska, second by Mr. Rogik.
Any discussion?
All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed, any abstentions, motion carried, and now the motion to consider the North
rank expansion of approval.
Second, motion by Mr. Campion, second by Ms. Means, any discussion?
I just say that I voted against the last expansion of funds for this one, so I'm in good
faith.
I've got to vote against continuing to escalate the cost of the project, so I this is
on the other two are fairly well covered by remain contingency.
But this one, I just, it's a little bit past the point for me.
But I understand that the community will benefit some from this.
All right. Mr. Builder back.
I think the fact that the Part Board knows about it,
the Part Group is once who brought this forward.
It's using, many that have been put aside for them.
And if they feel that this is going to maximize these maximized,
use of that facility. That was our intent to make sure that our facilities could be used
to the fullest. They are pitching in as well as making additional funds for this.
So I will support it.
All right. Anyone else? I'll call the question all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any extensions?
So the motion carries?
that's seven zero?
As a little bit slow.
Sorry.
As a little slow, sorry six one.
All right.
Moving on to Item D7, Special Events
and Missalini's activities, Mr. Hickey, then Mr.
Wardak.
On the permits on here is for the youth hockey association
and on the board of directors, so I'll be of standing.
All right.
Mr. Wardak.
One of the events on here is dealing with me
and I love myself, so I'll be re-cusing myself.
All right, move approval. Seconds. Most members can't be in second by Mr. Bill to back. Any discussion? All in favor then, indicate by saying aye.
Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstention? Aye.
Show the motion passing five two with Mr. Wojak and Mr. Hickey abstaining.
All right, moving on to item D15, a ward of contract for Project J-7261,
The two-manus reclamation and overlay for Riverview Heights drive northeast Mr. Woodjack.
A couple questions for public work staff on this one.
About how many properties are served by the by the roadway?
I don't know the exact number. I think it's 20.
This is a become a little bit more of a major capital project.
Are we doing some assessments with this?
We are not. It's more of a maintenance project.
we had identified it in our capital improvement program and it's been there often on for a
number of years actually. We have had some stormwater concerns and issues, the actual
reclamation of this versus a million overlay allows us to change some of the pitch of the road
so it slopes more interior towards the hillside allowing us to capture some of that water
effectively take that stormwater down to the river. So that's part of the project.
And that is that portion being paid for by stormwater funds.
Then, you know, I'm the poll, which I don't have the exact split on what that's.
I know that eventually we're getting a presentation on the status of capital maintenance of our infrastructure
because we're a billion dollars built up pent-up liability, something like that 20 million
a year is behind.
And, you know, it's painful to keep spending this, you know, hundreds
of thousands of millions at a time when we're so far in the hole and have no strategy
to get out of it. So, I mean, it sounds like we have to do this. But I'm eagerly awaiting
that presentation.
Mr. Panpian.
I had a quick question on this map, it looks like it's a, I think I've been up there.
It's a large loop, is there any thought to, like, call the sacking this to reduce them on a
paved surface or something like that, realigning this roadway, so we're not 50 years from now, I'm going to pay for more.
That makes sense. This is a giant loop. I assume we'll take far less roadway if we just call the sacking.
rather narrow, rural type of roadway, and we haven't looked at whether to end it in a
cold-a-sac and make the rest of it privately.
I think I was just too bad we can't agree. I mean, $200,000 in that adds up, I mean, $5,000
or assessment or whatever we'll be looking at, so.
No, it's some thoughts anyway.
All right, anyone else?
Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion.
Move the crew.
Motion by Mr. Hikki.
OK.
Second by Mr. Logic.
Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
All right.
Any opposed?
Any abstentions?
Motion carries.
Item D-16, Award of Contract for Project J-73-07, Construct South Broadway, Third Avenue
Southeast Intersection Improvements, Mr. Warday.
I just want to verify that all of the intersection improvements here are consistent with
the, is not a detailed plan, but the overview of our Broadway plans for the future
of the geometries and curb linements are correct for that.
Yes, the construction of the Third Avenue intersection here will be consistent with
section there. The rest of the project here, the alternate, it's one and two, or just resurfacing
of the existing pavement. All right, I'll move approval.
Second. Motion by Mr. Welljick. Second by Mr. Campion. Discussion, Mr. Ruska.
I want to guess this is saying goodbye to the pedestrian bridge that I walked to Golden Hill when I was in elementary school.
over Broadway, it was a cutting edge, big deal of avenue, and a good long enough to see it come down.
So the bridge that's there is coming down, and that's kind of iconic, it's been there for probably since the,
about 60s, early 60s. So, you were around, right, you're not.
Do you have a place for lunch?
Maybe I should quick call the crowd.
A lot of people are going to see a different look to that later, now it'll be different.
I mean, if it means a lot to you, I'm willing to have public works to pause it in your backyard
Even better
There you go anyway, anyway, and favor the project. All right anyone else? I'll call the question then all in favor indicate by saying aye
Any pose and abstentions motion carried item d21 revocable permit for nice right Minnesota bike racks at peace plaza
Mr. Build-A-Bak, then Mr. Ward-Jack.
Yeah, I think last time we had quite a discussion about this and with the Council's permission,
Kim's here, a director of the program, and she's on a lot of work, and I think it would be good for the council to hear what she's done.
So, permission.
Point of order.
Point of order. These are the first staff.
And you're correct for not discussing the peace positive?
Right.
Just trying to make sure.
What's that?
Thank you.
on the first time.
All these questions.
It's nice.
He's quite correct.
First of all, I said peace.
Plows in here.
Mr. President, we're having an hard time hearing.
Could people speak a little bit, please?
It's a point of order.
I just said it's not the peace pause.
That's 519 first Avenue.
It was just a car.
The RCA should be changed to reflect the current.
The RCA is correct.
So you're early at the time.
What do you have a different word?
Now you've got me confused.
I'm reading the description of the RCA.
The updated the RCA.
Okay.
So now it's done at the call up.
Okay.
It's sort of like that.
All right.
First we're talking about the answer.
All right.
Now, Mr. Bill of Acts question about the.
The Council.
It's all right to have the Director.
All right.
I'm sorry about that.
Would I have you confused?
Okay.
Yes.
So, I'm here to request the permission for permits for the location that people's who
have, the location at the peace plaza that came up in the last city council meeting.
We have, we're in the process actually of moving one of those sections so that it is different
locations so we took your advice to heart and also because of the fact that it's logistically
It does get out a little bit into the pedestrian walkway, so we don't make sure that that's not an issue.
We are definitely still open to your feedback as things go along, and we want to make sure that we're doing this in a smart way.
And also, I just want to show you two that the types of bikers that we're attracting through this program too.
Again, well, as part of the waiver, there are advised to absolutely not like on the sidewalks
to walk it out to first avenue and then hop on there.
Wait for the lights to change, of course, and then you take either right or left and good
to go.
So I think that's one of the differences.
I did see some people this morning as I was walking in to work on the sidewalk, so it's about
to wrangle them down, but I can't do that just yet.
But I think this is definitely a whole other chair of responsibility and I'm really excited to get this launched.
The second location at the people's food court, excuse me, is obviously further away from the downtown area.
And it's flush against the building. It's ideal location. And again, for both sites we do will be involving customer service component as well.
So we'll have our bicycle renters actually interact with humans, which is more than what we can say for all the poking man people out there right now.
But I think this is a good step in the right direction. So I'm happy to entertain any other questions or thoughts.
Mr. Bill, back did you have any specific questions?
I did want Kim to, there were some discussion about having 20 card readers on the 519 first Avenue and just asked her to clear that up because there seems to be some misunderstanding.
So for this first phase, we are, it's not the automated checkout system.
We'd love to have that in the second, third year.
They're very expensive.
Those racks cost about $50,000.
And they're the solar power, just to take a credit card and swipe it through.
Our model is a little different in that it will require a customer service component, like I've mentioned.
where bicycle ranchers will go inside, sign a waiver, take their credit card and swipe on a iPad with a square device,
and they can run for one hour for hours for the day.
So it's not automated, it's swathing system just yet.
And also you said there would be a sign on the bike racks again informing people not to write on the sidewalks.
That's our goal to do that.
We want to really address this with executive team too.
And I think that the way that we'll be promoting
the responsible biking habits is really as part of the conversation
when they run advice.
Signs will be up if they really didn't want too much negativity
with this.
It's inherent expectation when we have our nice writers.
I think it's a very different clientele as well that we're appealing to.
So that's, we'll do everything we can to really promote, I think, on a larger scale to more
response, we'll have it.
Mr. Wood, you had some comments?
I don't need more for staff.
I'm not going to be bestowed assistant city attorney still but I had a concern with the
language that was in the contract and I believe that pull up the contract here and reading
the contract this is, it refers to a contract with people's food, people's food corporation
and corporate are here and referred to as owner owns the real property adjacent location
where the applicant would like to place the bike rack and bikes. I don't believe that that
correct. I believe that the owner of the property is actually metropolitan marketplace LLC,
and I think the contract should be with them, not people's food co-op. So I think that as a
correction that we need to make, and I'm not 100% certain, but hey, I'm not the Assistant City Attorney.
Are you referring to the revulccable permit in agreement? Yeah, yeah. And that's between the city
in nice right Minnesota, right, but it refers to the owner in the contract.
And so you're saying the referral to people's food co-op ink is inaccurate, yeah, I'm pretty
sure that it's inaccurate.
This is, we can still correct it if that's indeed the case, after the fact, we can approve
this subject to a determination that the reference to people's food co-operation ink is accurate,
and if not we'll make it clear that we'll change it so that the referral is accurate, but
this is a contract isn't with that entity and so it's just an internal reference I need to be cleared up
okay as long as we can as long as we can clear it up that's good I mean let's see
yeah if we gave the building to the call-off I'm sure they'd be delighted with me but
apparently we're not doing that but we're just referring to them as the winner of the JSON
property all right I was going to say we were prepared to get permissions from the author signatures
as it is a shared area so I've talked to both sides yeah I know there's a portal okay yeah
Right, Mr. Camping that a question, okay.
Any other comments, otherwise I'd entertain a motion.
Move approval.
Motion by Mr. Camping, second by Mr. Hikki.
We assume that motion is to approve subject to a determination
of the internal references accurate. If not,
we'll change the internal reference.
You may so, that's the vote.
That's right.
Any other comments?
Mr. Ruskin.
I'd like to thank you for taking some of our comments,
and he's going to work on him instead of ignoring him.
I really appreciate your time.
Thank you so much.
One comment I guess I had as I saw the amount
renting the bike set casket like this week and
they were very popular.
I saw a lot of people that were taking
around the loop and checking it out.
Yeah, it was a big head.
So we're really proud of that.
Awesome to have you out in the community kind of showing
people those trails and getting out on bike.
So we should.
Thank you for the comment.
Thank you.
I will call the question then all those in favor
indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Any extensions?
motion carries. That concludes our consent agenda. Moving on to reports and recommendations.
Item E1 is amendment to incentive development, R2-014-0404, CUP, otherwise known as the
Nicholas Apartments. We've received some memorandums and emails and so forth on this subject.
So I will open it up for comments or questions from the Council or further comments from
staff, where would you like to go with this, Mr. Wojak?
I want to, before I get my other comments, I'll say I say big picture.
I mean, the building is not a, it's not a bad looking building.
It's a good looking building at, I think, folks acknowledge that, you know, and I think
that Wade and team did a good job with the architecture, and you know, I've seen some real
lemons in this community, and that's not one of them.
I'm a little bit concerned. It was there. Was this information communicated to the neighborhood association at all?
Not through our channels.
Yeah, that's a little bit of my concern.
So the neighborhood, there's been a number of issues with the project and they've been involved.
And I do appreciate Randy Clemento and a real nice job.
I've asked him to investigate a number of properties where it appears that substantial changes were made relative to what was approved, and this is one of those properties, and he did in fact confirm that there was substantial changes between what was approved by the city council and what was actually built.
We're not going to make them tear down on the building at this point and put up a new building.
But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't make sure that the agreed parties are potentially getting,
you know, some fair exchanges in this because there are some significant cost savings relative to what we approved,
that when in there, my bigger concern overall is just the fact that, you know, with the process that went through such a public process,
these changes would we just get a memo and another neighbors would be notified that we're
just going to bless a bunch of changes, the violated what we approved, and so my preference
would be to table it and take it up after the association has had more of a chance to
comment and I did share the information with them and I actually got back some comments that
they found at least one other item that appears to have been different between the site plan
that was approved and what was actually built
having to do with the quantity of lighting at night
that was installed.
It sounds like a noticeable change to the neighborhood to me.
So the neighborhood hasn't even had a chance to really weigh in
on whether all these changes are even covered in the memo.
And then I think there's a bigger integrity question here
about are we going to really, is that really what we're going
to do we're going to approve an incentive development
and, you know, it's not doing this building anymore, but have, say, here are the rules, here's
what you must build. And then when that doesn't get built, we're going to get a letter sent
to us, and we're just going to bless all the changes. I mean, that'll teach the next person.
So, I wish, you know, I think that if there were some things that were changed, the value
maybe we should take a look at that, but certainly I think that I would, I think the neighborhood
and the parties that were involved with this should have a chance to weigh in and view these materials as well.
So I'm a little bit concerned about moving forward, but I do want to not lose sight of the big picture that's pretty good looking building.
Mr. Campion.
Staff kind of commented that there was someone's certainty about whether or not these have been approved over the counter as those sorts of changes.
Can we just get some clarity about whether or not that happened?
Let me give you a little background.
on this typically when there would be an incentive or restricted development in any other
conditional use permit. Section 61148 allows staff to make minor changes. If it's not included
in one of the minor changes, it goes back through the same public process that the development
approval went through. So for a incentive development or a restricted development to be the
three phase three process that it would go through would come back here.
On several of these projects, there's the condition that says that any changes have to come back for council for their consideration approval.
That's why it's not part of our, it's not part of the land development manual, that's why it's not a public hearing.
That's why we don't send out the notifications and that's why the neighborhood, the development information on meeting and all those things don't apply to the criteria tonight.
As far as specifically as this one, there was some examination by our staff and Randy went out there that what they built did match with building safety had.
What building safety had approved was not the same as the last draft that we had now.
Is it possible how that happened? We're looking into that.
We're continuing to build systems but a lot of these projects changes sometimes happened on the fly and they go through the process and don't always think about
what the fact that this is kind of a special project that has that condition?
Mr. Camping.
So my follow-up on this is, okay, let's set aside the actual outcome here.
There seems to be a process problem and what are we going to do to fix the process problems?
It sounds like there's not opportunity here where building a safety goes out and that's something I guess
an incorrect diagram that they believe is correct that you believe now is incorrect.
What's the fix?
Well, this is the developer's responsibility, the applicant's responsibility to bring those to our attention as we go through to make sure that they come to us for approval.
I think as we move forward, we're continuing to work with Randy and the building safety staff.
We're continuing to enhance those relationships because these aren't things that happen every day.
It's not like we have had hundreds of these that have come through, but as we move forward, we're continuing to flag these.
And as our staff notices that they're coming back in,
we're looking at them a lot more, very closely.
And the close-o look here, just to make sure I'm fully
understanding what you're saying.
We believe that building and safety correctly
vetted this against the document that they had at the time.
You guys correctly reviewed this against the document.
You had it at the time you did your review.
The applicant is responsible for ensuring
that those documents are the same.
Yeah, and I don't know where.
frankly we don't know if had this gotten to planning we wouldn't have been able to sign
off on it because it would have been different so that's where we're just trying to
figure out what happened on this one but we're trying to create systems where it
doesn't happen again it's also why we have our zoning and enforcement staff go
out there and look at these as they're being built but it's a tedious task and it
is something that's difficult and sometimes these change in the fly whether it's a
building thing whether it's in architecture thing whether it's a general contract or
not everybody knows all of the steps on the app kind of the developer side also to say,
oh, I better make sure that the planning to part. This is something different on whether it's landscaping
or building or whatever it might be you're almost getting to what I want to hear, which is we're going to fix this
and send them out to the council like swings how we fix that. Which feels absolutely perfect.
Because this is the sort of problem that we have that is avoidable and I don't like just leaving a voidable
problems out there, because sometimes we say, so I see our assistant city administrators here
and maybe he can drive this to some sort of memo for the councils that we can understand
what's being done to fix this, getting a nodded of agreeable.
All right.
I have Mr. Ruska, and then Mr. Bill the back, and I will point out that the applicant's
representative is here if we have specific questions along those lines.
Mr. Ruska.
Well, then May 3rd, I joined this group, because we were going to have a meeting, there
going to be I think more than one council member there. I showed up with planning and zoning
was there. Brent was there. Randy was there and there was thoroughly some confusion on which
copy they were using. There were things that were edited and written on there. They weren't sure
who had written it and had been approved. And some of the things actually came from staff that said
you need to change. Staff was telling the developer to change. So it's not a perfect system. It
looked like there was good intentions across the board with everybody. We went to several
facilities and none of them are exactly perfect but they were pretty darn good and there
was there was an indecision on why they were changed and who okay and who should have
had the final okay and was it we're gonna kind of generate from so I think that there is room
as Nick says there's room for improvement on this and I think staffs will wear that but I think
that overall everybody tried to do the right thing on this and it was just a couple little
And when you show, well, this copy says this and this copy says this, which copy is the copy, we're supposed to go by.
That's where we have a few problems that I don't know how it's easy to resolve at this point.
So it was an interesting exercise.
And just a point out, I think staff found between that examination.
Now, I think we found five or six different things that were not originally part of this RCA that we wanted to make sure we're brought to your attention tonight.
So we are looking over these with the fine tooth comb.
Do we want to enhance how we do this?
But we do look closely at this and when we see something when the project has these conditions associated with them, we will be bringing them to your attention. In fact, there are several of these that you'll be seeing here in the next six weeks or so.
And it was that staff could have made some of those recommendations for those adjustments, correct?
I mean different departments and that that maybe as we came up with that day.
Some of these things were staff had told them to change the location or something that nature.
That could be correct.
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
Mr. Billabak.
Dave Mark, can you help me understand what a major change is versus a minor change?
And then of the eight that we have are these all considered major changes?
If you were to look at Section 61148, which actually outlines what is a minor change, those are the staff authorized changes to approve conditional use permits which in 7 and restricted developments are.
It outlines it as basically anything that does not change the number of residential units that has less than a 10% increase or decrease in the floor area ratio.
that doesn't have to create any potential pedestrian or vehicular problems, doesn't impact
public facilities and utilities and doesn't reduce the number of lost street parking.
So if it meets all of those criteria, those are changes that under normal circumstances
staff can improve internally.
If it does not meet, so if you had 100 units and someone came back and wanted to do 140,
that would not be considered a major change.
The things that we're talking about tonight, typically, all of them would be minor changes
that staff would evaluate and be able to approve in house.
Thank you.
That's real good.
So, it is just to be clear, if we took this building and the developer instead of putting
brick on it covered it with vinyl siding, that is something the staff can approve.
We have to, I don't know if I'd want to sit right now, it's difficult to look at it without
height.
I don't want to answer a hypothetical question, I think that we have these in here.
If you'd like to make changes to them, certainly, that's your prerogative and I'd encourage
you to look at that because I'm a lot of these that is a time-consuming process.
You take this really, really big problem with developers selling us one thing and building
another.
So we put this thing and you have to build what you show us, and now we're saying, well,
actually, no, not really.
And I understand that internally, maybe some of our processes are weak, but we have a preliminary
and a final plan, and the final plan we say we will build that, and what was submitted
to our building safety, were plans that were never presented to the city council.
We may have our own internal issues here.
That's not our issue.
That is the development team that's squarely on them.
The fact that there are still items in here that probably are not covered by this memo, does that mean it comes back again
When we find something else, I mean, I assume it does based on what I'm hearing, and then finally we need to be looking at these on a case by case basis because the I checked with an insurance agent today in this this comment that oh yeah, we poured concrete for this walkway instead of putting in pavers because the insurance company needed it I asked my insurance company can you put pavers up to a front door on a commercial multifamily building no problem well according to this memo the insurance company saying they can't do it and it's something that you know
cheapens up the project and I so my preference would be give give people a chance to react
to this stuff because there's a lot of changes here but we need to put the blame
squarely where it is that what was submitted to the building safety group is not what was
submitted to the city council and in theory our whole idea behind putting the you know the
clause on there was to prevent this from happening again and again and here we are with another
doesn't change us. And at what point do we get serious about enforcing the standards that
we have right here? We can't just keep slapping risks or having people write a memo
to locate and expect that the next person is going to be serious about actually making sure
their final plans, the middle are what they're actually going to build.
Mr. Newman, if you do continue this, we'll get you some information and bring it back to you.
thing filled at the concept of major and minor is something that is practical and is probably
something that I would think we're likely to recommend.
For something that's fairly small, I mean, your example of vinyl versus brick is obviously
not my mind of a minor change, but there's certain lesser things that I don't think you
want the contractor to have to wait, or the building owner two weeks to come to a council meeting
decide some really little things and I think you had a few things that have been somewhat
little that have come back here so you know we'll get you some information and you'll
have to make a decision but I think the concept for having something major and minor in
there probably made some sense unless you want I mean sometimes things change on side
you build houses and all that so that's my true sense we're done with it let me ask
that I mean in this case entire what entire size of the building had all of the windows
to remove major or minor change in your opinion to me that's a major change and that's and that's what I that's what I'm getting
I hear and it I'd say changing papers. Well, you know, and if there's there's a reason for it. So two reasons I'd want to continue and again
I it's not to have them rebuild the building. It is what it is. It's not going to change
But I want to set a precedent that there's going to be some review and some scrutiny over this and I also want to some of the comments
I've gotten about additional changes that have been made.
Let's do this once instead of doing it twice, because there are some things with the lighting
and I think some other landscape comments that I got that have changed as well, that
are not covered by this memo.
Just can't be him.
So, one other thing, and I don't pretend to have the same staff to responsibility for this,
because I think it's been made pretty clear that it's the responsibility that Apple
can make sure everyone has the correct information when they're doing the review.
But one other thing I'm kind of hearing, I think Council Member Ruskin brought it up was who said this was a, you know, our staff was at this department or that department and who's saying what, who's the most familiar with a seller here.
And someone raised a hand that might want to talk to me about it.
Because one of the things I want to know is should we be driving all comments through a seller so that we have a paper trail of who is saying what about these projects?
because it's really, this is beyond the panel that we're having a discussion that comes down to finger pointing about who said what modern technology allows us to track this stuff.
So I'm just wondering if that's something maybe we can take back to have a little bit of commentary on because I do see it as a problem here that we can't tell who told them to make these changes or if they were told to make these changes.
It should be something as easy as going back to look at a record and say they were never told that.
there's nothing in our system and then if we start running by that policy, the development
community, or I'm pointing to the audience, but the development community of all of Rochester
will know unless I get it in that a cell of document, it's not what they're going to look for.
I would like to give that marching order someone who is the best person city administration.
Thank you.
I think we'll bring back some comments on that as well.
I don't know how practical that is, I don't want to just be like it's hard to enter that.
Just if being hard to do isn't good enough, I like if if there's not a
complaint reason not to track every entry that's made about these never email stop
reporting an email start putting into a running document really that fixes a
lot of our problems up here as people that are supposed to govern this and get
up to date fast on a development if I can go look over the history of every
exchange between our staff and the developer you know voila things start
I start getting the full picture instead of half this way, half that way.
So, I appreciate you pulling this to take it on.
I hope that I would have support from the rest of the council.
I'll push this.
But it is something that we do need to have a solid answer for.
Well, we'll get you an answer.
I'm not sure all their departments will say,
and they're going to be able to put everything in Excel.
So, we'll check with you.
We can be related to this 20 years ago.
We can take a class and we can do it.
All right.
I would agree that with our continued implementation of technology,
It'll probably present opportunities to better document and provide that sort of audit trail.
I don't, I also don't want to decide of the fact that sometimes in the construction industry,
you know, things will happen in the field in a construction project we've been involved in.
Sometimes you do make some changes in the field. Certainly not major, but, you know,
so I think there's some, some allowance there for good judgment,
But I do agree with you that we I think are having the opportunity using the technology we're implementing to better track some of the changes other comments
I was gonna stuff what about that garbage enclosure stuff is that actually done the way that it was supposed to
That was another comment that I had because it's not mentioned in the memos at all, and I think there were some it was either
Herbage utility enclosures that were
Modified
I'm gonna like Greg Johnson and answer that question. He's the staff person
look at that site. If that was something that was noticed as you evaluated it. The enclosures
surrounding the utility, the bank of utility. That was the main enclosures I can think
of that was that seemed to be added after the approved that was different from the approved
runs that we had. It was also a portion of a fence that in the memo that was added around
the rain garden. I can't picture anything with a trash or garbage enclosure that was different
from the approved drawings.
All right, Mr. Rochka?
Well, I think Michael said it, right. This is a nice building. When I was there, I was impressed
with it. There are some modifications. It looks like some minor changes. You look at a fence
with this all around the rain garden along portion of the east property line until he boxes
a place in the south side of the rear yard. You know, I don't look at him as major changes
you can talk about a paper versus a cement slab and what's right, several of the slabs removed in a paper.
Papers were put in, one was left remaining.
So I guess at this point I'd like to approve the changes and put the 12 conditionist staff as recommended for the applicant.
She'll submit two sets of full-sized drawings reflecting the approved changes to the building and site design.
So that would be my motion at this point.
All right.
We have a motion by Mr. Ruska second by Mr. Hikki.
Move table.
Is there a second?
I'm sorry?
Motion to table by Mr. Logic second by Mr. Campion.
We're going to be reviewing these again anyway,
because there's more changes that are not covered in these mammals.
And so I'm quite happy taking it all at the same time.
Thank you, Campion.
I deal as though we would be remiss to approve a change without having some sort of policy
decision to go with it about how we're going to handle these going forward.
You know, we already saw this kind of minor versus major change discussion.
And it's really concerning to me that we would potentially accept something with a condition.
that says you then have to give us the document that we should have had probably before we pass
this, that was kind of a, so we'll not be to that horse, but I will support the day.
Just for us, I guess I was in favor of us looking at trying to figure a better system out
and, you know, but the buildings built and the things are done and so I guess I don't know what,
If we have a few other changes, I don't know. I haven't heard a lot about it. Maybe there are a few more come in. I don't know, but these seem
Like they're down here, they're reasonable. They're done. I'd like to see it's moving to some process that that cleans this up and I think staffs will wear that and I think we will see some action in that direction
All right, what else?
So
I've been on this for eight years and we've been trying to get developers to build what they say they're going to build and any years later
We're talking we're going to fix this process. We're going to fix this process. Well, you know, some of these changes are minor other parts. They took all the windows off the side of a building
That's not minor
You know, they do things like putting in a fence along the ring garden probably not a big deal, but should they have put in a nice fence?
Probably
You know, he moved utility box. It should they have done something to screen it probably
It doesn't have to be a B.O. and all, but, you know, they promise papers and they're delivering
papers. Why in God's name are we letting that happen? This is a good building. I'm not
going to, that's not the issue here. The issue is, you know, the integrity of how we're upholding
the processes that we promised to these neighborhoods. And I don't think just, you know, signing
these blank checks is model integrity for the city council. Now, we're not going to tear down the building.
There's not going to be major changes, but what can be fixed and can be resolved.
We should get resolved and, you know, the building's going to go ahead.
It's already got occupancy and we'll get it, we'll get it worked out, but I want to make sure we get everything that we can get delivered for the neighborhood delivered.
And we're not doing that yet.
All right, motion on the floors to table, I'll call that question, all in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Aye.
Okay, could you sit in Mr. City Clerk could you do a roll call please
Councilor Bill the rack.
Councilor Campion.
Councilor Hikki.
Councilor Maraska.
Councilor Means.
Councilor Vodrig.
Councilor President of Staver.
So the motion fails two to five.
So we're back to my original motion there.
Yeah, I'm going to move to the next.
to insist on the papers instead of the concrete walkway.
We have a motion by Mr. Wojik for an amendment
to the original motion as proposed by Mr. Rusk is our second point of order.
The last.
I guess I'd
like to get on record the insurance company that said that that wasn't the problem, because we have an
record here that says that they'd prefer it so that would help me to support that.
I just called them my folks at Liberty Mutual but you know ultimately if they want to
go through the process of changing it we have a process for changing it. I want this to be
delivered. I want and to build what they told the neighborhood they were going to build.
there it says here in the letter the loss the loss control the part of the insurance
company would recommend that the sidewalks be kind of great to lessen the future
liability. I I appreciate that recommend because it doesn't say insist.
All right we
motion on the floor for approval of the amendment only I'll call the question although those
in favor indicate by saying aye, aye. Any opposed?
The. I show that motion failing to five with Mr.
Logic, Mr. Campion voting for the motion.
Is that correct? No, I vote for it.
All right, three to four.
So the motion fails.
Back to the original motion as proposed by Mr. Rosca,
for the discussion. Are you ready for the question?
All right, I'll call the question, all those in favor and to get by saying aye, aye, any opposed?
Aye. Any abstentions?
I'll show the motion passing five to two with Mr. Wojik, Mr. Campion voting nay.
Aye, vote me.
All right.
I'm not hearing you down there. I'm sorry.
All right.
We've concluded that item.
Moving on to our public hearings for this evening.
Item F1 is a public hearing to consider authorizing the issuance of a health care facility's
note for community dental care project by the Rochester Economic Development Authority.
This is a public hearing.
Is there anyone that would care to comment on this item and when it all final call, close the
public hearing and obtain a motion.
Second, motion by Mr. Campions, second by Mr. Hickey, any discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
All right.
Any opposed?
Any abstentions?
Motion carries?
Item F-2 is to expand residential permit parking in zone 6 of 6,7 southwest
to 600 block.
This is the public hearing.
Is there anyone who would care to comment on this item?
Yes, sir.
Please come forward.
We just need your name and address.
Sir.
know, which is one of the three parcels. I don't have anything really to say other than just
if you have any questions. So we'll be at the otherwise.
I'm all right. Thank you.
I was going to say, Doug, I want to just thank you one more time for the incredible work
and patience you show. This is the gentleman who's largely responsible for that tank
up by St. Mary's. It perhaps drove him into retirement, but we appreciate his work.
All right, is there anyone else that would care to speak on this item?
Final call?
I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
Move a approval.
Thank you.
Motion by Mr. Camping.
Second by Mr. World Jack.
Any discussion?
Just one one one thing.
We get these things very peaceful.
I'm supportive of this.
They meet all the criteria.
It's going to pass.
I just want with one of these two that we're talking about today.
One of the requests from the Husky Park neighborhood as we talked about park
last meeting like we do it just about every meeting and there's not a mechanism right now for a neighborhood
to come forward and propose a uniform standard because everything is driven off this block by blocks 75% thing
So I was simply looking and I don't need an answer tonight, but I'm looking for some upper-down guidance from the council of couple of my neighborhoods
are interested in trying to pilot a neighborhood wide program like this so we get all this block by block stuff
If you're, you know, let less staff know if that's something that sounds reasonable to you because I think we'd have a few less of these hearings if we did it on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis.
And I would agree with you in the sense that we've had this topic on our committee, the whole agenda for that we'd like to consider at some point.
I agree doing this street by street block by block is counterproductive. It oftentimes what happens is we kind of shuffle the problem of block further, you know, in one direction or the other.
So it would be good to address this from a broader policy perspective.
All right, I will call the question then.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any extensions?
Motion carries.
Item F3 expand residential permit parking in zone 10.
Second Street Northwest, the 1700 block.
This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the care to speak? Yes ma'am.
You need your name and address please.
Brenda Maxwell, 1738, Secretary of State, Northwest, and I'm the one that brought the
petition forward.
We've had, and approximately, an influx of 20 to 30 cars on our streets.
The street is not wide enough for double parking on both sides.
All of our service vehicles, mail carriers, trash people of all had,
haulers that had trouble getting through.
And in top of that, several of them are encroaching on our driveways,
which has caused us to call community services and issue tickets several times.
And I received, I did get the permission from Cory Ridge, for our part of the block.
They're not the problem. It's male in place.
That have found our street to be convenient.
And we're a little tired of it, so we'd appreciate a vote on that.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who would care to come at final call close it's a public hearing and entertain a motion move approval
Motion by Mr. Bill to back second by Mr. Hickey any further discussion, Mr. Bill to back. I think Indian and Mr. Logic
Talk to you earlier. I don't know if doing neighborhoods are going to correct the problem. The problem is pretty much everything
West of the river
and time-bought zumberal river and bear a creek is restricted parking in some manner.
The South East South West areas are having the same issues but they have not come forward yet to ask
although we do have parcels in those areas that have a restricted parking. I think the request
of figuring out a better way to do this is makes really, really good sense. We talked about it every time
I bring this up. I understand where the neighbors are upset when they can't park, but all we're
doing is kicking the can down the road. And we need to address this. It's and I do get a little
sensitive. I had worked for May of for 35 years. The fact is it's not just my own place. It's
anybody working the downtown who can't afford to parking at the different parking lots,
ramps in the downtown area. It's a construction that we have going on in the city.
of Rochester that it will have contractors parking in these neighborhoods.
So it's an issue that's all of the cities to be responsible for and for all of us to try to figure out a better plan.
I'm not criticizing those who wish to have the ability to get in another driveway.
I totally understand that.
But I do think that it's a problem that we're going to continue to push down the road and this council is going to have to figure out some way.
or decide to ask for public works assistance in some manner to deal with his eventually.
All right.
Anyone else?
And I would ask that Mr. Staver that we bring that forward sooner than later.
The big picture.
And we talk with the neighbors to if you give good alternatives, people will use it.
And we just don't have really effective large parking lots on the surface of community service by frequent transit yet.
Richard promises is all that it's coming.
So I think that that's you know, it's it's the missing transportation piece that's feeding into a lot of this and we I think we will get there
Okay, all right
Anyone else call the question all those in favor indicate by saying aye
Any opposed any abstentions motion carries item F 4's final plat r 2 0 1 6 dash 0 2 1 plat by northwest investments of lacrosse
I'll see, to be known as Northwest Commercial Center FIFF.
Platforms is to subdivide 18.32 acres by repladding outlot F of the Northwest Commercial
Center FIFF into one block and two lots.
This is a public hearing.
Is there anyone that would care to comment?
Hello, my name is Larry Dolby, 16.483 to have a new cell feast representing Northwest
Investments across LLC, just here to answer any questions if you have them.
All right.
You're in agreement with the Conditioner.
Yes, sir.
All right, any questions for the applicants?
They're going to be two more hotels.
OK.
All right.
Thank you.
We may invite you back.
Is there anyone else who would care to speak on this item?
Anyone at all?
Final call.
Close the public hearing and obtain a motion
who will approval with conditions.
But motion by Mr. Campion, second by Mr. Hickey.
Any further discussion?
Hearing none.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye, any opposed, any extensions, motion carries.
Item F5, conditional use permit R2016-021CUP by Stonehead Townhouses LLC.
This is a public hearing. Is there anyone care to comment on this?
Yes sir.
Bill Anderson with SEH, we're the engineers for the developer.
available for any questions. This is the 6th phase of the Stone Age account home subdivision.
It's an approved site plan, grading plan, and plans are going through the process.
And this is the SLA just to, as we have some of the grading that's over 10 feet.
There's one condition that looks like staff has attached for grading plan.
Yes. We're in the process.
All right.
We've made invite you back.
Is there anyone else who'd care to be heard on this item?
Anyone at all?
Planal call?
Close the public hearing, and I'll take a motion.
We'll approve with one condition.
Motion by Mr. Hickie.
Second by Mr. Champion.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor then, indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Any abstentions?
Motion carries.
Item F6, as a vacation petition.
R-2016-002-VAC-1A1 incorporated to vacate a portion of right-of-way a red-hawk-drive-style
east and Falcon Road-South East. This is a public hearing. Is it anyone who
cared to be heard on this item?
Good evening. My name is Chad Carlson. I'm with Lumber 1A1, Pielbach-7, A1-256-301. Part 3-1-0.
Sorry. This is actually part of next two public hearing. So I'll just leave it
If there are any questions you may have right now, otherwise I will address the project
in the next two years.
All right.
I think is there anyone else who would care to be heard on this item?
Anyone at all?
Final call?
I'll close the public hearing and then entertain a motion.
We will do conditions.
Sorry.
I wish my Mr. Rockscus, second by Mr. Hikki, any further discussion?
When I was, when I was a question for staff, when I was looking at this based on the way
development is laid out after this. It appears to me there's no need for any mid-block
connections but I just wanted to verify that right. We're going through the site plan
process right now but that's what it appears to that it is that is correct.
Okay.
Then I will call the question all those in favor and hate by saying aye.
He opposed any extensions motion carried. The next two items obviously are about the same
project, but we'll read both of them, and then perhaps the applicants represented can respond
to both if need be. Item F7 is a general development plan. R00340 GDP by autumn heights
of Rochester LLC to be known as Falcon Heights of Rochester. And item F8 is a preliminary
our 2-016-019-plat by Autumn Heights of Rochester LLC to be known as Belkin Heights of Rochester.
Is there anyone care to comment on either of these two items, the GDP or the Pulmonary
Platform?
Yes, sir.
Good evening again, Chad Carlson.
Number one, Eva.
I'm also representing the Heights LLC group that is doing the project on this property.
This is a project that has gone through a lot of changes over the last six, seven months,
working with the city and coming to what you have in front of you tonight is actually the
culmination of the valley side development that's in this area so this is our last piece
of the 80 acres that we developed since 1998 so this kind of wraps the whole project up consists of
120 units, buildings that consist of eight units per building and like playing the apartment mentioned.
And we are going to the site plan right now. We should have a lot of the site plan work done here in
next week or so, working with them. The conditions of the approval, majority of those have been met,
or either discussed at this point where a lot of the larger ones are the agreements to get in place
before we get started. But we'll continue to work with the city on the site plan and make sure that we're
Any questions you may have?
Are you in agreement with all of the conditions?
For both the GDP and the pulmonary clot?
All right.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who'd care to be heard on this item?
Anyone at all?
Final call?
I'll close the public air in and entertain separate motions on the GDP first.
And I believe there are...
Who was 16 conditions?
I'm sorry.
Was there a second?
Second.
Both my Mr. Rosca, 2nd my Mr. Woodjack, any discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries, and now the preliminary plot?
I have that as a group of 19 conditions,
Stray King 117 for 1217 conditions.
Fever.
All right, motion by Mr. Rosca, 2nd my Mr. Hickey, any discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by Stan I, any opposed, any abstentions, motion
carries, moving on to resolutions and ordinances, Mr. City Attorney.
Thank you, Mr. President, for first reading of ordinances from
D6, an ordinance creating
and enacting Section 143A point, 32 of the Rochester Code of ordinances relating to the
The City Clerk requests the rules be suspended so that the ordinance can receive second reading tonight.
And we'll do this in the rules.
I'm not sure if I missed a campaign second by Mr. Woodrick. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? All right. Thank you.
Motion carries.
For second reading in final passage, an ordinance creating an enacting section 143A.
point 32 of the Rochester Code of Audence is relating to the creation of a mobile food units
franchise for Max Mobile Kitchen in the city of Rochester.
Second.
Motion by Mr. Hickey, second by Mr. Campion, any discussion, all in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed?
Any abstentions?
Motion carries.
Moving on to second reading of Audence's, an ordinance of mending and reenacting section
60.6 to 0.5 of the Rochester Code of Audence's relating to development, informational
mediums.
Motion by Mr. Rusk is second by Ms. Means. Any discussion? All in favour?
Indicate by saying aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries.
In order to create an enacting section 71.10, an amending and re-enacting subdivision
of Section 5.03, Section 70.0670.08, 70.11, and repealing Section 70.07 of the Rochester
Code of Ordances relating to the permit requirements for replacement repair or adjustment
of sidewalks, driveways, curbs, and gutters. This is the ordinance that clarifies what
permit is required for what particular sidewalk or street repair activity and also add violations
to the administrative citation process.
Second.
Motion by Mr. Hickie.
Second by Mr. Campion.
Any discussion?
All in favor then?
Indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
Any extensions?
Motion carries.
All right.
Thank you.
We have no table items this evening.
Moving on to other business.
I have two that I would like to bring up.
The first, and you should have some memorandum from staff.
both public works and planning and department.
This relates to the 501 project on 501 on first LLC,
it's referred to.
Hopefully the memorandum were explanatory enough,
but this request came to my attention early last week,
where essentially what the applicant would like to do
is we had already approved as part
the incentive development, a bump out landscape area on the northwest corner of the block
and what the applicant proposed to do is actually extend that bump out further to the south,
taking out two parallel parking spots, but in lieu of that creating more hard-scape landscape
area and patio dining for a potential tenant of that area of the building. While we were
Looking at that, there were a couple of other things that we thought in the spirit of completeness.
They wanted to take care of as well.
One was that in construction, they had originally promised that the awnings would be a dark brown material,
but with the window casing and so forth, they decided that it would be more attractive to.
They'll still do the awning, but now they'll be a solid black material.
And then there were other slight changes relative to some bike racks and relocation of bike racks and relocation of benches to complete that process.
Both planning department and public works both commented based on their department review.
And you have that in front of you, and I could stand for any questions or any comments from staff.
We have the items related to the 501 project.
I ran these by Councilmember Build-A-Back, and I'll let him comment on his own, and then as was stated earlier,
We sat with the President of the South Historic Southwest Neighborhood Association to give them a heads up as well because they didn't want anybody to be surprised by walking this on under other business.
We just couldn't get the paperwork done in time to get it in the packet.
So apologies for that.
Any questions or comments?
Mr. Builderback.
I think, you know, it's interesting we have a project like this when we had the issues that we had earlier tonight.
And yeah, I think it's great that they brought it through the Southwest Historic Neighborhood
but they should also brought it from the downtown Neighborhood Association as well.
I think that's an issue that we've found is now worked well as making contact
back with the groups that are responsible.
I think these are great improvements and it was wonderful to hear the Southwest Historic Neighborhood.
Mr. Davies get up and support the project.
I think that's great.
I think that's the way the system should work versus the way we went through this last one.
I appreciate that.
I hope staff please take note that we need to make sure we bring the right people to the table to have these discussions.
I think it's important.
I think at least in this case two with the 501 project, the project isn't completed still in the process.
where I struggle is when we have the case that we had the last one that's all done and
that what you do now. So I think it's interesting. I think the 501 project is a good example of
how it should be worked through with the neighborhoods and I believe this is going to be a great
improvement to the area. I appreciate the fact that the developer thought about this and wish to
do this and thank you Mr. Stavers for filling in for me. I was out of town at that time but I think
It's wonderful they brought the people in and they had that discussion before the project move forward.
One other comment I forgot to mention, the reason for the urgency is my understanding as the contractors at that point where this week they planned to pour form and pour the curbing cell, otherwise we would have waited until the next regular council meeting.
would I? I'd willing to support this largely because the, you know, my, my contact for the area,
you know, a reputable leader of the Southwest Association was contacted and supported up,
and there are pretty benign changes, so very happy to support that. And anything that takes the
eye away from that salt wall, I'm also in favor of that. All right. If there are no other comments,
I would entertain a motion. And I believe we can handle all of this as one motion. Is that
be accurate.
I'm troubled.
This is a walk on, so it's hard for the record to reflect what it is you're holding on.
All right.
So I would recommend you take them separately and you announce, specifically, what it is that
you're asking the council to approve.
Move approval of the change to the honnance.
This would be the Type III amendment to R-215-0155-CUP incentive development by 501 on 1st
LLC.
There are no conditions, I don't think.
There is one condition.
additional voice from above tells me, there it is, plans would be resubmitted.
So this is a motion for approval of just the canopies.
Is that what you said?
I think you want to separate motion.
I think separate motion for the planning and then the approval.
I was referring to it.
I'll read the description.
let's let's that'll make it help, help clarify. So the first item would be a type 3
amendment to R-2015-015-CUP incentive development by 501 on first LLC.
I think most of my Mr. Hickie, second by Mr. Woodjack, any discussion on that?
Yeah, so I make sure that can sync all this stuff together.
The P, I guess, yeah, that's not even marked.
The page I have with a drawing is pretty convoluted,
but doesn't look like the front of the building.
The one that's attached to the CUP and Senate development,
that's an amendment, doesn't seem to have a map showing the removal of the stalls.
But I noticed in our other set of pages here that are associated with the right-of-revocable permit for the right-of-way,
And then there's a set of drawings for the building.
Would planning staff care to comment on whether you've seen or clear on the drawings and
changes?
So within the amendment to the special, the restricted development and center development
She's L1.0 and L2.0.
Anyone else have those?
I don't have an L1.0.
I don't know.
There in you now from Brent.
Bill's on the house.
Mr. Swanby.
It's on the left side.
Here there's a bubble that represents the area for the area right here.
And we're the two parking spots.
We're removed.
No.
So I'm not I'm a danger when I come to these because we have a condition on there that says
specifically that they can't make an operation without a bring it back to the council.
So I'm pretty concerned that we get the right drawings in there and there's no drawings as far as I can tell.
There's blown up drawings of the rear side of the building in our what's in front of us.
Here's my other concern about doing it this way.
Is that is planning staff willing to test that there are no other changes in this document that are being approved?
Because I would like to know what the appropriate way is to ensure there's nothing that planning staff have not reviewed about this document that we're now bringing in to the incentive development
Does that make any sense
So the attorney can you not admit it?
Yes, it does make sense
We have a letter from the
Appded
Yes, what are you going to reply?
I've verified the what was provided to be reviewed within the applicant.
I reviewed the original plans to the documents that were provided here.
And I find them to be consistent with the changes that were acknowledged by the applicant.
But to be entirely clear, you are not saying that there's nothing change in here that is not being acknowledged.
This is a catch-point to when I don't appreciate taking the entire council through it, so I think this is a really important exchange here is that we're handed a document, we're asked to do an amendment, and I can't, I don't feel entirely certain that everything in here has not changed, and maybe that's the attorney can give me a path forward, inviting that, looking up to test that, that is all that has changed between these documents, provide sufficient grounds to move forward,
If you're comfortable with that representation, but if it turns out later on that there's
something in that map or that drawing that you didn't know about, it's too late.
The rest of the council have any opinion on this, because that's me as a pretty huge liability for us to take on at this point in the project to say we're just going to accept a drawing that's put here as a walk on.
And I believe we have the applicant's representative here.
I would be biased only in that I set through the meeting.
So I saw the drawings and what they wanted to do and so forth.
So did something else get slipped in?
I'd like to believe that all of our applicants are represented with their best interests.
So, Dan, would you like to come forward please?
The one this time sensitive here is pouring curb. I did see drawings of how the curb was going to be.
So if we approve that change, let's do that and let's get everything cleared up for the next meeting to the other ones.
So my concern only is, is there a picture that shows only those changes?
I believe there is on that one, yeah.
This one is.
We need your name and address please for longer.
Diane Hoy, representative of 501, I'm first.
I'll make it ask you a question.
This is more a procedural question for the council.
This picture actually shows the entirety of the building.
Like, the picture that is being displayed on the overhead actually shows the entirety of the building.
So if we approve this as part of the amendment, this is the document that guides development.
So all changes that could possibly be in here are what is now the document.
Unless your motion is more specific, this is why I was looking for, I figured he was just going to let me hang out there long enough and then give me an option how to move forward.
So in other words, there's a motion.
Yes, there is.
You can amend the motion to approve only the curb and gutter changes as depicted in this drawing, so that if it turns out there is more out there,
you haven't cut your, you haven't foreclosed the ability to go back and take action on those
other changes.
All you would be approving if you narrow the scope of your motion down to, was it curving
gutters at it?
Well, Bill, I'm getting, I suggest there's more.
Well, you're looking for the assurance that these are the only changes that have been reflected
on the, I mean, how I feel really comfortable.
If I went up there and I clipped out just the portion they're talking about, I hate to
like that seems laughable but that is what happens in these things and then people
shop and say we've brought in and these other pictures look you approve this amendment and
isn't what you're proving in the bubble diagram and they'll say the bubble diagram I'm
perfect for that you can't see two areas right here with the bubbles on it all right if the
city attorney feels comfortable that doesn't expose us to that you're clipping by motion
in other words so to physically clipping you're doing it by by your motion right
do we need a motion to amend or is that it yes or you can take a bi-general consensus
what are we doing? Mr. Chair. Mr.
Mr. Freeze. There are a lot more improvements in the side of that bubble than just curbing gutter.
And you can't do the curbing gutter without doing all the rest of the improvements.
I think your concern was that we're doing the whole building different changes.
If you're within that bubble, are you okay?
That is exactly what I'm hoping is that we are localizing the changes and not adopting 11 by 17 image for a 1 by 1 change if that makes sense
Just one more point of clarification or question for a council member camp in would you in your motion want to still include the other things that were bullets pointed out and just have the bubble part for the site plan
And here's the nice thing, it doesn't my motion as far as I know.
Are you ready?
Fikki's on.
Oh, OK.
I would have moved a men-the-motion to indicate the bubble
region but to retain the bullet points as we're in the original.
Thank you.
All right.
We have a motion by Mr. Campion second by Mr. Hikki,
or an amendment, which further clarifies exactly what it is.
We're approving any discussion on that amendment.
I'll call the question, all those in favour indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Any abstentions?
Motion carries.
Now we're back to the original motion.
For approval of the type three amendment.
As amended.
Is there further discussion?
I will call the question, all those in favour indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Any abstentions?
Motion carries.
Now we'll move on to the revocable permit with 501 on first LLC for improvements.
in the right of way.
Move, rule.
Motion by Mr. Ruska, second by Mr. Hickey.
Any discussion on that?
I'll call the question then.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Any abstentions?
Motion carries.
All right.
Thank you.
Moving on to one other business item.
I had talked a little bit about this afternoon at the committee of the hall.
As you know, we received a third proposal for possible use of the senior center slash armory and
I specific point of order. Yes, we need to make sure we get a copy of those pictures I were up here because my amendment was very
Okay, as long as it was submitted. All right. Okay. Oh, we got the week. We have we have the deal for 20
sorry for the interruptions okay moving on we did receive a third proposal for
possible use of the armory building I purposely did not schedule it for review
at today's committee the hall because there was a question raised by one or two
council members as to whether we could in good faith consider the proposal given
had been submitted past the deadline date for the RFVs.
So before we took it to some sort of public review and presentation, I thought it best
that we discussed the RFV process a bit this evening, and whether or not we would be willing
to entertain this third proposal.
So with that in mind, I know that Mr. Campion laid off because he wrote the memo.
I should start out by saying I did not review the proposal quite intentionally as you kind of alluded to.
I don't know anything about the contents besides the title.
And I think we're in a pretty precarious position right now.
Our ability to provide a fair review could be compromised if we let an additional proposal into the process.
And if I take a step back, we chose to do an RFP because we really wanted a transparent
and fair process.
I think the RFP process, typically you send out a request for proposals, you set
some sort of deadline, you get the proposals back, you open them all up, and you decide
if those are what you want, either throw away the entire set and start over, or you pick
one and you move forward.
I don't intend to indicate anyone is nefarious, and I say that because why I'm a sound is
going to seem like it's suggesting that, but to start a process of review that involves
public critique and public availability of the reports and over a three-month period
really and then to after the deadline to accept an additional one would seem to confer a possible
advantage to the one that's received far later. And this is an a question of legal authority.
I'm sure we have broad powers in this realm. This is an entirely a question of fairness.
Is it fair to the proposal that was submitted three months ago to have to get up and give us
testimony to then be compared to one that comes after.
And I think this opens up Pandora's box a little bit about how
will we ever close down this admission process.
If we accept one three months after a deadline, we set this on now,
what happens three months from now when someone has another proposal.
So I guess what I would ask is to kind of ensure that we can continue leveraging
as RFP process to move the city forward, especially with DMC and the number of reuse projects
we're looking at, that we would kind of stick to the originally indicated deadline, evaluate
the two that are out there, try as hard as possible not to allow ourselves to be biased about
a plan that was submitted after the date, decide if one of those two meets kind of what we're
for about a project to reuse our rebuilding.
And we've decided to go down one of two paths either.
We select one of those two.
And we close the process and don't have to move forward
to fail the submissions or we reject all the submissions.
And we would reissue the RFP after that process.
Hopefully it was some additional guidance
that would lay out what was missing.
And not let a new proposal in with no bias toward the content or the people who submitted it.
But with some understanding that it would seem to offer the most fair playing field for those that had already submitted.
That's really something I think we should look to aspire to as a process that is equitable and fair and transparent to all those who participate.
I think, you know, as I, as I was considering this tonight, I read Mr. Hopkins, memo, I completely
agree, it creates a bit of a conundrum, you know, when, when, when do we close the RFP process
and we really mean at this time? So I do understand that, but I was also giving some thought
to, you know, at the end of the day, we as elected officials, we're mere custodians, we're custodians
of the public assets, and would I be remiss if I ignored new information that might provide
for potentially the best and highest views of a public asset?
So I do understand what you're saying.
I'm not quite willing to just stand on protocol or the RFP deadline and say we absolutely
could not consider the new information, nor do I necessarily want to, you know, throw it
all out. You know, decline the two proposals just to start it over. That just seems like, you
know, Jerry Mandarin just so we can consider the third proposal anyway. So I'm not saying, yes,
or no, to whether I want to review the third one, I'm just raising a philosophical point. And I
I'll almost reward you to hand up.
I will echo everything, Council Member Camp, Council Member Camp, and I think this is a question of integrity.
And I think that you set up a fair process and you respect that process and we follow through on that process.
I don't think it's much of a gray area to say that if we were issuing requests for proposals to operate the transit system.
And we have accepted one two months after everyone else selected there's not a gray area
We went down that path we're getting sued and we're going to lose because there's no integrity to that now in this case
We set up the RFP process. We didn't have the same legal threshold or legal requirements for how we did it
But how can you say to the people who followed the who who followed the process the way it was supposed to be done
that this is okay, and I just think it speaks to it.
I think the considering this at this point is just something that I'm not willing to
do like.
It does not reflect the kind of integrity that I expect out of my city.
Mr. Hickey.
In the end, I want the best use for the facility.
So I think there's absolutely some legitimate questions on process here.
You know, and perhaps the answer would be to reject the ones that have been submitted
and refiner process, but we've talked all along about considering selling the property.
I don't think there was any, certainly not in my part, the intention that someone who submitted by March 31 perhaps,
but if we had one proposal, we're going to automatically select, you know, if it belongs to hit it by the date.
So perhaps, again, perhaps we need to refine the process.
I think one of the options was to camp in its August, it is rejecting the proposals and refine the process.
So we open it.
But in the end, I want to get it right, so I don't want to say, you know, up, you got
it.
It's got to be one of those two.
All along, we've talked about perhaps even outright selling the property, so I don't
think there was any intention to say that it was automatically going to be up one of those
two proposals.
Mr. Campion, then Mr. Bilbeck.
I just want to clarify, to me, the process should be, we evaluate, and we evaluate
project on its merits. And if we decide to reject both, we have the option to reopen
the RFP project, not. We just, you know, go to the projects out and we kind of start it all
over without that a value of process. The second piece I guess I would offer is, we're custodians
of buildings and dollars, but we're also custodians of the public trust. And we have to understand
and that not presenting a process that maintains integrity and transparency, it betrays our need
to facilitate that public trust.
And it's probably more valuable than the buildings.
The people's trust that the government is working in their interests, and we'll work in their interests
in a way that's transparent, is invaluable, and so I guess I'll leave it at that. I think we have to move forward with what we have.
Mr. Bill, I agree with Mr. Campion. I mean, here's one of the things we talked about earlier.
And there was another one, remember that requested to be heard after the deadline.
And that person that proposal never came forward to my knowledge. Now, again, we said there was a deadline. We advertised this three, four months in advance. It wasn't like, okay, next week we're going to take proposals. Please have it done. That's not the case. And again, this is, I do agree with Mr. Camp again. And this is a trust issue of the public that we said this is a date. This is a date.
We're trying to about a very valuable piece of property.
Piece of property that many groups would want.
I think we evaluate the two prep proposals that we received,
and we either select one, or we pass them both out,
and then we can re do an RFP.
I, with Mr. Camp, and I did not spend a lot of time reviewing it.
I looked at the title, and I did nothing more with it at that point.
So let me ask a question.
And let's assume that we disavow the third proposal, the comment, and I'm the one that
probably made it, the comment that we could outright sell the building, would that also
be not considerable because it was raised as an option after the RFP process concluded?
Can we not sell a proper?
I guess I don't remember when you said that I thought that that conversation had taken
please prior to, but with that if it was after the fact, if we don't accept any of the proposals,
if we re submit or as a council we feel the best interest of the city is to sell the
property, then that's what we will do. But we look at what came in prior to that date.
I would look at his means.
I submitted a letter also.
It wasn't.
It's only as council members.
Campions letter.
But in essence, it's the same message.
I think
I'm concerned about what the public will think about us.
Pretty mere trust in us to make good decisions about
including a third
project to reconsider for the Army when it's after the deadline, it just does the same like a fair way to move forward on this.
I would prefer that we would have the two. There was no commitment to make a selection of the two, is that we call President Seaver.
You said you let them know in a couple of weeks is that correct?
What I read the decision was, so we're going to have another discussion about this.
It would seem based on the way I understand it.
And if we find that these two do not meet the standards that we expect, or not in the best interest of the taxpayers,
then I think you can reject them, but I don't think at this point we can include
I think it's the option of selling the buildings a little bit of a strawman at this point because
that somebody could have proposed that as an option prior to the required submission date.
And we could have considered that with the other two proposals as well.
So I guess I think we have two proposals on a table.
My personal view is one of them has a lot of validity too.
And the second one I've requested more information.
I'm looking into the financials a little bit more.
So I'm happy to, you know, first of all, go to the path of those who follow the process that we set up.
Mr. Ruskin, I guess I'd like to ask staff why the date was picked that we picked for the RP deadline.
The RFP went out back in September of last year.
We gave them to six months, essentially, to March 31 of this year.
And then with the presumption that that would leave us adequate time to essentially negotiate and work out the terms of the
So, you know, whatever agreements we would have to put together with, whichever party may
be selected to as the party that would be able to utilize the building, figuring that
the building would be available probably around sometime in the first quarter of next year,
so we thought we'd have six to nine months to get all the terms of agreements worked out.
I would note that the RIP says you can reject any and all proposals, so that's in there.
And obviously if you can reject any and all of them, you can consider if you want to go the process,
where you're just going to consider these two initially, you can still say at the end of that,
that we're going to consider other options including selling the building.
It's a city's building, you can do what you want with it.
It's a procedural question you're dealing with, but selling the building is certainly not
off the table as one of the options.
Well, like the follow-up, I think the integrity aspect is important and the guidelines
that we set out are important.
It's hard not to read over a third one and then apply that in your thinking as you move
forward.
We had a separate RFP proposal in the same thing happened.
We got one in a deadline and then the other one came in, they said the next day they
actually three days late, you know, those things happen sometimes, where things aren't all
as it puts you in a test spot, because we consider an adult, and I understand what we're
saying here that we know we said this, so we should stick by it, but we're also are looking
to make good financial decisions for our city if we can save 152,000 dollars a year, our
tax payers and our citizens expect us to be able to put those decisions to us.
So it does put us in a tough position, and I guess I'm okay with keeping it as it is, but
knowing what I know and my knowledge got three proposals because I've read the other one.
And I suppose I agree with Mr. Campion that the integrity and transparency are vitally important.
But then also as Mr. Hickey said, we want to get it right,
or at least as best we can, using whatever information we have at our disposal.
so that it does make it somewhat of a dilemma, although I'm sure this happened in the legal
arena all the time for whatever reason, things are termed as inadmissible, or after the
fact, and sorry you didn't follow the rules, so that's the way it works. So I understand that
if you're president in other settings where what might perhaps make sense from a common sense
standpoint when you're following the rules and procedure and as a quasi-judicial body we're
obligated to do that. So that's why I can support not looking at that third proposal at this
time. Mr. Wood, I think the financials here are important. There's no doubt about it but I don't think
it's the only thing down here and you know as I say it previously I think there's a lot of people in
community who feel a little bit left out a little bit hurt about, you know, how some of the
changes downtown, whether or not they're truly related to DMC, are affecting them.
And there are a lot of people looking for creative outlets that either one of the proposals
could possibly help with. And, you know, it's, you know, we, we know that we could sell this land
for a lot of money. We could turn a real nice profit selling this off, leveling the old armory,
having the best bond of surface parking lot redeveloped. But the people of Rochester
are really care about the arts being accessible down town, and these are a couple proposals
that potentially do that. So, well, the finances are very important, making sure down town
is welcoming to the people who want those resources down town available for them. It's
pretty important too. And that's why I'm giving these other two proposals, pretty serious
consideration. Mr. Ruskin, I guess two words learned here over the last few weeks by
all groups. Maybe there's a different combination and a better plan out there that could
possibly happen to, so, you know, I guess we'll see how this plays out.
That is true.
So, I'm sensing that there's a consensus that we not consider the third proposal,
but I'd like to have that in some, I will move that we'll not,
where we find the third proposal, not, does not comply with our RFP process,
and we will not consider it.
second by Mr. Campion in any further discussion.
So, but obviously depending on how these other two proposals, I mean this RFP process may open up again.
So, at this time we're not considering what that makes sense.
Sure. That's true.
All right. I'll call the question.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
All right.
Any opposed? Any abstentions?
Motion carries.
Thank you for indulging me on that topic.
is there any, is there any, is there any, is there any, is there any?
I'm your, what circumstances would you reconsider the term, school?
I would surmise that we would, for whatever reason, decline the other two proposals and decide
to reopen the RFP process, then it could be submitted and considered.
I will, I will throw in our possibility, too, is there's the, you can begin negotiations
with one, do a pilot trial with one and, you know, reassess after a year or two as well.
There's some lots of options.
we have.
They can come back with a change. I suppose it would matter whether it was a major
minor change. Well, we'll see what conditions we put on the approval.
I'm sorry, I had to slip that.
Yeah, all right. That seemed a little bit early.
Obviously, it was an order of jokes. This is time. Yeah. All right. Is there any other business?
So I would entertain a motion to recess.
Motion to remover.
Second, I must re-wrote all in favor indicate by saying aye.
All right.
The meeting is recessed.
I will call the order of the economic development authority.
Moving to our consent agenda.
Move approval.
Motion to remover.
Second, I must re-wrote all in favor.
Second, I must re-wrote both sets of minutes.
Any discussion?
All in favor then indicate by saying aye.
Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries. Reports item D1, tiff district 32-1 for
Valley side estates, forth, de-certification. If there are no questions, that would
be deemed doable. Second, motion by Mr. Campion, second by Mr. Hickey, any discussion?
All those in favor then? Indicate by say and aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion
carries. Item D2 is a resolution of proving the issuance and sale of a health care
facility revenue note series 2016 and authorizing the execution of documents relating there
too for community dental care project. If there are no questions, I would enter any motion.
Move a rule. Second, the motion on Mr. Campion. Second, my Mr. Builder back. Any discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion
carries. If there is no other business, I'd enter a motion to adjourn the EDA. Move to adjourn.
Thank you. Motion by Mr. Campion. Second by Mr. Hickey. All in favor.
Indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstention? Motion carries.
I will call back into order the City Council meeting for July 18, 2016.
And ask for a motion to adopt the findings of the EDA.
Move to adopt.
So motion by Mr. Campion. Second by Mr. Hickey. Any discussion?
All those in favor then indicate by saying aye aye any pose any abstentions motion carries if there is no other business
Identical motion to adjourn motion is to camp the insect on this for Wojek
All in favor say aye