Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-1998RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA • - - -. I A -- .. ►. • ••- Agenda Item A-1 B-1 E-1 & E-2 D-1 No one wished to speak during the Open Comment Period. President John Hunziker called the meeting to order at 4:15 P.M. with the following members present: Councilmembers Mack Evans, Ed Hruska, Marcia Marcoux, Jean McConnell, David Senjem, Walter Stobaugh. Absent: None. Councilmembers Hruska moved, Stobaugh seconded, to approve the minutes of the September 21st and 28th Council meetings as amended and the license for Fireworks at the Mayo Civic Center on October 13, 1998. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. The September 28th minutes, C-1, were amended to reflect the motion of Councilmember Senjem and second by Councilmember Stobaugh to accept the Planning and Zoning recommendations. A Continued Hearing and Discussion of Proposed Subdivision Regulations. Phil Wheeler, Planning Department, presented a summary of applications from the time they were received for annexation until they were received for final plat counting up the time that the application was active. The City's hypothetical days were 193 and the builders 199. North Park Subdivision did not require a zone change so was just short of 150 days that it could of taken; it took 93 days. White Oaks subdivision took 143 days; Wedgewood Hills, 88 days; Southern Woods, 154 days, the result of tabling the final plat to address the right-of-way issue at the interchange. The City is taking only approximately % of the maximum time allowed in spite of delays at various stages. Wishing to be heard was David Higgins, 323 Everett Avenue, Eyota, President of the Rochester Builders Association. He stated that the proposed regulations are not conducive to affordable housing for the area. For each $1000 extra cost for the price of a house in the community, there are 134 people who will not be able to afford the house. The Rochester Builders Association has asked Greg Ingram, Planning Consultant, to speak on their behalf. Wishing to be heard was Greg Ingram, Ingram and Associates, 2959 Dumont Avenue South, Minneapolis, representing the Rochester Builders Association. Relating to the Adequate Public Facilities portion of this proposal, the burden is unfairly shifted to new growth based on demand on systems like traffic. Traffic in the future will come from existing business and residential. They feel that it is an attempt to shift the cost of infrastructure improvements to new growth. It should only be a fair -shared basis. He stated that development should pay its fair share of public facilities costs. Mr. Ingram stated that the proposed ordinance creates a "piecemeal" approach to the transportation system; ,a city-wide comprehensive approach is needed. The Level of Service Standards (LOS) should be at a "D" level rather than a "C" level. Most cities use LOS "D" and "E"; no one else in the state uses "C". 1 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 5 - Recessed Meeting No. 28 — October 12, 1998 Agenda Item Charles Reiter, Planning Department, noted that the "C" standard is presently used for freeways, expressways, arterials; °D" are collector and local streets. MnDot presently uses the "C" standard. Dr. Robert Freilich, Kansas City, Missouri, stated that the City cannot and will not require a developer pay to an impact fee. What they are asking is that in areas where there is no traffic capacity, then the developer should advance funds or phase -in development to ensure adequate traffic capacity. Wishing to be heard was Bill Oswald, 5718 Lancaster Place N.W. He stated that the people in his neighborhood who are going to be impacted by future developments have severe concerns about traffic. The subdivision regulations as proposed seem to be exactly what is needed. The piecemeal approach of doing multiple traffic studies at different times could be a problem. How is the future traffic capacity projected? A comprehensive plan is needed for the City to look ahead. Wishing to be heard was Larry Johnston, 6200 Fairway Drive N.W. Mr. Johnston was concerned about the development of land to the north and to the west. He asked what investments will have to be made when the piecemeal studies are completely and then have to be redone because of further growth. He noted that over the past eight years, 55th Street has been under construction in one form or another. He stated that he would like to see a comprehensive traffic study completed of the entire city. Councilmembers adjourned at 6:00 P.M. for a supper break and reconvened at 7:00 P.M. Dr. Robert Freilich, Kansas City, Missouri, discussed the concerns. He stated that there is not a problem with the time frame for developments to be completed. The neighborhood meetings and other requirements can be done concurrently. On seven different projects the maximum time was about 110 days. Dr. Freilich pointed out that there are three types of traffic analysis: a. Rezoning traffic analysis required at the time of certain types of rezoning. The evaluation is whether adequate traffic capacity exists or will be available within a reasonable period of time; what off -site traffic demands will be created by the subdivision. b. Traffic impact report takes place at the land subdivision permit stage. It deals with the question of what happens and basically adds "site". It combines what is included in "a" but adds a site plan showing the site access points. C. If a general development plan does not require a traffic impact report, then they would be doing a traffic design analysis. If something is not included in "a or V, it would be done under "c". RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 5380 Resessed Meeting -No. 28 Ge-tebe '�9J8 Agenda Item Currently the City uses the LOS "C" standard. To lower to the level of "D" or "E" would only deteriorate the traffic problems. If you are at a non -signalized intersection and you are at LOS "D", you will have long traffic delays. To lower to LOS "E" or "F" is incomprehensible. Having adequate infrastructure and traffic mobility and adequate public facilities is not inconsistent at all with affordability of housing. You have to recognize that as the growth keeps moving out, the road capacities that you have are going to have to be addressed and the subdivisions have to have traffic capabilities. If you make that infrastructure part of what is expected to be produced as a part of the subdivision, there will also be incentives to go back in to areas which have capacities. Developers are not charged impact fees in those areas where capacities meet traffic levels. If you have concurrency, you can either deny approval or you can enter into a development agreement where the developer gains vested rights and you get facilities that are required to mitigate the deficiencies out on the fringe in the urban sprawl. It is to the developer's benefit to execute the development agreement. It reduces that lack of uncertainty and could otherwise escalate housing costs; it gives assurances to the applicants and reduces development costs. Lack of public facilities is a serious impediment to the development of new housing and does reduce risk and increase certainty. Street cost projections, the Council may not be 100 percent aware,that any road built prior to the 1950's will need to be rebuilt. The dollar value is increasing and growing for just what it will take to reconstruct the existing roads. This is what the general fund is going to have to address, you can't make developers deal with that. The City will need $159 million. Nationwide, unless the deficiencies are addressed, they will keep growing. Wishing to be heard was Julie DeWitz, DeWitz Construction, 604 11t' Avenue N.W. Ms. DeWitz referenced the development agreements. She said that the agreements are new and wonderful and that developers want them, it will have a dramatic time and cost savings and are completely voluntary. What Dr. Freilich did not tell you is that unless you enter into this development agreement, you can't sell a lot for one to two years. One of the things in the new ordinance is that you have to have your streets accepted by the City before you can record your final plat. Once the final plat is approved, it is only good for one year. At the present time, it takes two years before the streets are accepted because the base coat is put down the first year and the final coat the second year. Dr. Freilich said that the ordinance will speed this up; we had been asked by Public Works earlier in the year to slow it down. It is a measure for the City to collect fees, extraction, and excessive dedication that the City is not allowed now to do. There are no impact fees. They are not legal. But there is no test on it because we voluntarily have to do it in order to make our business run. Wishing to be heard was Bill Seitl, 4412 Cooperfield Lane N.W. Mr. Seitl noted that the point that keeps coming up is affordable housing. There was a housing study by Olmsted County done last year. Builders keep saying that a lot of people who are buying new houses, it is their first house. In my neighborhood, it is their second or third house. There are other low interest -rate loans for people in lower incomes. There are income levels and there are price levels but they are affordable. 1 Agenda Item RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 5 - Recessed Meeting No. 28 — October 12, 1998 Wishing to be heard was Dale Allen, Yaggy-Colby Engineers, 717 Third Avenue S.E. It was originally proposed to have the six -year capital improvement program go hand -in -hand. The staff has now said that they cannot make that commitment but only one year at a time. Please consider that carefully because it has a drastic effect on development, where development is going to go, and making some type of commitment. Dr. Freilich mentioned that a traffic impact report could be done locally for $3,000. Our firm does those and could not do it at that price. Having no one further wishing to be heard, President Hunziker closed the hearing. Councilmembers Evans moved, Stobaugh seconded, to move forward items 3, 4, and 5 as suggested by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Discussion. Councilmember McConnell noted that he had some reservations about the three items. He asked that before the ordinance is returned to the Council, there is consideration given to the developers and the items that they have talked about. Councilmember Senjem noted his concern about supporting item 3. He stated that the Council needs to think about the whole issue of competitiveness and that our housing is able to compete with that in the townships and small cities and that we can compete for business like we have in the past. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. Councilmembers Stobaugh moved, Evans seconded, to remand the proposed subdivision regulations back to the Planning and Zoning Commission so that they may consider the actual wording of the Ordinance. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. G-1 a An Ordinance Creating and Enacting Subdivision 3 to Section 60.323 and Section 62.455 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances and Amending and Reenacting Sections 60.200, 60.310, Subdivision 1 of Section 60.323, Subdivisions 3 through 11 of Section 60.323, Paragraph 1 of Subsection (a) of Subdivision 5 of Section 60.424, Subsection (b) of Subdivision 6 of Section 60.424, Sections 62.114, 62.211, 62.212, 62.221, 62.222, 62.224, 62.225, 62.231, 62.232, 62.241, 62.242, 62.251, 62,252, Paragraph (6) of Subsection (c) of Subdivision 1 of Section 62.261, Section 62.262, Subdivision 1 of Section 62.263, Sections 62.278, 62.284, 62.312, 62.361, 62.362, Subdivision 2 of Section 62.381, Sections 62.412, 62.422, 62.432, 62.441, 62.442, 62.511, 62.512, 62.513, Subdivision 1 of Section 62.514, Sections 62.651, 62.722, 62.723, 62.724, 62.725, 62.732, 62.735, 62.760, 62.933, 62.936, Subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 63.252, Sections 63.264, 63.456, 63.635, 63.642, 65,350, and 65.430 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to Permitted Residential Uses in Zoning Districts, was given a first reading. Councilmember Senjem moved, Evans seconded, to suspend the rules and give the Ordinance a second reading. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. Councilmember Senjem moved, McConnell seconded, to adopt the Ordinance as read. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 5 3 8 2 reseed Meeting Ah_28 _ October 12, 1998 Agenda Item Councilmember McConnell moved, Stobaugh seconded, to publish a summary of the Ordinance as prepared by the City Attorney and the City Clerk. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. Having no further business, Councilmembers Hruska moved, Marcoux seconded, to adjourn the meeting. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. ity Clerk 1