Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 196-06 r RESOLUTION WHEREAS, DeWitz Construction, Inc., applied for a variance from the requirements of R.C.O. Section 62.232 as to the minimum front yard setback for a single family attached dwelling of 25 feet (the applicant seeks a variance of seven,feet from the minimum setback amount) for property located south of Eastwood Road S.E., and east of Hillcrest Court S.E; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff recommended findings of fact indicating the requested variance to this location requirement does not constitute an exceptional circumstance, is not necessary to ensure adequate or reasonable use of the property and would not cause a material detriment to the public welfare and the adjacent property owners, but would be detrimental to the City's Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual; and WHEREAS, Section 60.417 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances provides the criteria by which a variance request is analyzed; and, WHEREAS, this matter came before the Rochester Common Council at its April 3, 2006, meeting; and, WHEREAS, at the April 3�d public hearing, the Council considered the information •presented to it in its council agenda packet (attached hereto as Exhibit A) as well as the testimony presented at the hearing; and, WHEREAS, based upon all of the information. presented during the April Td public hearing, the Common Council made the following findings of fact: 1. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: The City of Rochester rezoned the property across the street to R-3 and moved the road south seven feet reducing the front of the lot in question. Applicant was told at the time of placing the fill that there would be no change in the front lot line. Also, these lots had an elevation difference of 40 feet from the front to the back. 2. REASONABLE USE: The.granting of this variance is necessary to allow for reasonable use of the applicant's property. It isn't practical from an engineering standpoint to bring in more fill and it is not cost effective for affordable housing. 3. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare and adjacent property owners. The granting of this variance will continue the visual setback with the home on the east. 4. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the hardship would be a variance of seven feet to the setback standard • since the City is taking seven feet off the front of the lots; and, WHEREAS, the Council concluded that, based upon the above findings of fact, 9-Appellant's request for a variance satisfies the criteria of Section 60.417. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the City grant to DeWitz Construction Inc., a variance from the requirements of R.C.O. Section 62.232 as to the minimum front yard setback for a single family attached dwelling of 25 feet (the applicant seeks a variance of seven,feet from the minimum setback.amount) for property located south of Eastwood Road S.E., and east of Hillcrest Court'S.E PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS fZd DAY OF 2006. G PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2006. MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) Zone O,'Ata ria nce Res.0606 • 2 GDP#265&ZC#45-16 i • i Neighborhood Meeting: w 750 ft. Notification Area of Lots 5, 6 and 7.Rose Harbor Third Cl i UCR PKY SE Pas i i I { V 4! TKWY 4 WY 14 THWY 14 i THWY 14 TH Proposed Zone Chan a from �� �" "a sit9. R-1r o R-2 9 P1Ns:63.07.11.037827; , 63.07.11.037826 "' &t� ,' 63.07.11.037825 - - - - -- - - - - ` -Neighborhood Assoc:None �>� M�, yam �' � ' "� � Ward 4(Pat Carr) 10/10/05 I 6 � 12� f I 4f I # N W+E i S 1L4 D—W County is not re.p—sole faommi.don.or arras contained Muria N daaepandes an farad vAntn tKs map,please no6y E. the GIS Oivislat.RaUester-Olmsted County ftrNirg Daparlmenl 2122 Campus Drive SE,Rorhesler.MN 5590c,(50� XHfB'1 285$2n. X V R3 p: 09 Op. O-. :..E�I � O Z' Z EASTWOOD ROAD SE _ M M 99.80 50.T - 0 � - 50.0I i 15.00 50 ;H 51.50 m N — yF 0.00 V.E. R1 J I r Zen �22'-+-0 85=---42' t. 0.1 n h I i` v d 1•-T •� Rl Nd O ' C) Z. I I Z•'• SED LOT L NES 50.00. 50.00 50.00 So.00. . 48.00 51.00 00.00 100.00 S88 36 06"W 99.00 R RECEIVEll MAR 17 2006 RGCHESTER-aLMSTED ' PI\NNtNG DEPARTMENT REVISED la M.rw� f � a.•.a.1.,1 60{Iltl,Aw NYI� F/N 40 ea .W_...... �... GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN � w` ROSE HARBOR THIRD NORTH SCALE AS SHOWN LOTS 5 6 AND 7 _ — •��,�M.` ;�.+, ROCHESTER. {AN • � - 1 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT O4.ROCHES..... N • 2122 Campus Drive SE,Suite 100•Rochester, MN 55904-4744 COUNTY OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning � '•. :' y •................• 1 O�A�RA TED�AUGUSTS•��• ADDENDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: March 22, 2006 RE: Variance #06-06 to the front yard setback requirements and to section 64.143 regarding the driveway spacing standards. The properties are located south of Eastwood Road SE, east of Hillcrest Court SE. Planning Department Review.- Applicant/Owner: DeWitz Construction Inc. • 604 11t'Avenue NW, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55901 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie &Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Variance Request.- The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback requirement of the R-2 (low density residential) zoning district. In the R-2 zoning district the front yard setback is 25 feet. The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of 18 feet,thus a variance of 7 feet for the lots included in the GDP. The applicant's reason for the variance is "This accommodates the City's request for 7 feet of additional R-O-W. The existing terrain would not allow the homes to be setback from this new R-O-W line." According to Section 62.232—R-2 Site Appearance Standards of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: The Required Front Yard for a single family attached dwelling is 25 feet. The applicant requests: 1) a variance of 7 feet to the minimum required front yard setback. The Planning staff suggested findings are: • EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There do not appear to be exceptional circumstances or conditions tnat apply to trie applicant's property that do not app y generally o o er properties In BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/2 8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 ew.w. PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER v Co Page 2 Addendum • March 29,2006 the same zoning district. The applicant created the exceptional circumstance by placing fill on the lots. Additional fill could be placed on the lots creating a more suitable building area or a house plan could be designed to work with the topography created by the applicant. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be necessary to allow for the applicant reasonable use of the property. The applicant could bring in additional fill for the property or a house could be designed to fit with the exiting topography of the lots. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance would not appear to be visually detrimental to the adjacent property owners. Currently there are no homes located to the west and to the north is a golf course. There is a home located to the east which appears to be setback approximately 25 feet from the existing right-of-way. However,the granting of this variance would be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. I l MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to Section 62.232 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. This-finding would not pertain in the case of denial. These findings do not support approval of the Variance, • EXCERPT FROM THE ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL 60.417 Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request, the approval authority shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines: Subdivision 1. The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: A. there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; B. the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved; C. the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance; and Page 3 . Addendum March 29, 2006 D. the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 4. In granting a variance, the zoning administrator or the Board may impose such reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to accomplish, to the extent possible under the circumstances, the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to be varied or modified and to reduce or minimize potentially injurious effects of the variance upon adjoining properties, the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. A variance and any conditions and safeguards which were made a part of the terms under which the variance was granted are binding upon the applicant and any subsequent • purchaser, heir, or assign of the property, and any violation of a variance or its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation of this ordinance and punishable as such. • -\c6 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT o�•gocxesTEx.M�N�� 2122 Campus Drive SE,Suite 100•Rochester,MN 55904-4744 �`� :�oy • COUNTY or www.olmstedcounty.com/planning _ o,�• Rk. �R9 rED•AU GU ST•5-p• TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: November 3, 2005 RE: General Development Plan #265 by DeWitz Construction, to be known as Rose Harbor Third. The applicant proposes to subdivide these lots to facilitate development of single family attached dwellings. The properties are located south of Eastwood Road SE, east of Hilicrest Court SE. Planning Department Review.- Applicant/Owner: Dewitz Construction 604 11 m Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 Consultant: McGhie &Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave.SE • Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of Eastwood Road SE and east of Hillcrest Court SE. Requested Action: The GDP proposes that eventually the 3 lots would be re-subdivided into 6 lots for single family attached dwellings. Existing Land Use: The lots are currently undeveloped. Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). The applicant has petitioned to rezone the property to the R-2 (Low Density residential) zoning district. The reason for the rezoning request is because the applicant wants to construct single family attached dwellings on the property. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities (10 foot wide bituminous path) will be required along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. The applicant shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City which addresses the Owner's obligation for the cost of constructing said path in the future. Drainage: The property generally drains to the south. No storm water management facilities are proposed for the development Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to the property being developed. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 ti=w.ac•w PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 __ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 . General Development Plan#265 November 3,2005 6 Transportation Access to the property is from Eastwood Road SE. The recently Access: adopted ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 shows Eastwood Road SE as an upgrade planned Secondary Urban Arterial on the Functional Designation Map and has been assigned a Street Design Classification Designation of 2+Median LTL. This roadway will need to be reconstructed in the future to the standards of 2+Median LTL. The 2+Median TLT is a roadway with 2 through lanes and the provision of separate median left turn lanes at intersecting public streets. The Rochester Urban Area Bikeway Maps identifies Eastwood Road SE for a future"Class I"single bike facility which means a bike path on one side of the roadway. A right-of-way of 40,feet will need to be dedicated for Eastwood Road SE when re-subdivided to accommodate the necessary improvements. Public Utilities: The property is within the Rose Harbor High Level water System Area,which is available along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. Static water pressures will range from the low to mid 50's PSI within this area. Each unit will need to have individual water services per the requirements of RPU Water Division. Sanitary Sewer is along Eastwood Road SE and would be available • to serve the lots. The minimum fire flow for this development shall be no less than 1,000 gpm at 20 PSI. Wetlands: According to the Soil Survey,hydric soils do not exist on the property. Parkland Dedication: The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that parkland dedication for this development be in the form of cash in lieu of land. The dedication would only be required for the increase number of dwelling units (3). Tree/Brush Disposal: The applicant may use burning on-site as a method of removing trees and brush from the property. Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments 2. Copy of General Development Plan 3. General Development Plan Narrative Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the Criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted regulations,which became affective May 15, 1999. • Page 3 1/ General Development Plan#265 November 3,2005 • Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map. If the general development plan is being processed concurrently with a rezoning request, the general development plan and the rezoning request must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. if the general development plan is being processed concurrently with an amendment to the land use plan map and a rezoning request, the .land use plan map amendment, rezoning request and general development plan must be consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan. If there is inconsistency between these documents,the means for reconciling the differences must be addressed. Land uses within the GDP would be consistent with the `low density residential' land use designation for the property on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. A Zoning District amendment is being considered concurrent with this GDP application. Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. This GDP proposes low density residential development, which is consistent with the land use designation for the property. Adjacent land uses consist of single-family homes and undeveloped parcels that have been platted for residential homes. The proposed development Is and would be compatible with the existing and future uses of the adjacent properties.- In order to develop the property with single family attached dwellings the . property would need to be rezoned to the R-2 zoning district, which the applicant has requested Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The policies and goals found In Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. This development. will help to further the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan and also those found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long-Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible-with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. The development will be served by shared access locations off of Eastwood Road SE. According to the 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Program, the reconstruction of Eastwood Road SE Is scheduled for the year 2008. The scheduling of the reconstruction could change to a different year depending on funding. i Page 4 General Development Plan #265 November 3,2005 Criteria E. On ,and off-site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. 1. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. The development will be served by shared access locations off of Eastwood Road SE. According to the 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Program, the reconstruction of Eastwood Road SE is scheduled for the year 2008. The scheduling of the reconstruction could change to a different year depending on funding. The recently adopted ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 shows Eastwood Road SE as an upgrade planned Secondary Urban Arterial on the Functional Designation Map and has been assigned a Street Design Classification Designation of 2+Median LTL. This - -- - - - - - -roadway will-need to be reconstructed-in-the-future-to-the-standards - • of 2+Median LTL. The 2+Median TLT Is a roadway with 2 through lanes and the provision of separate median left turn lanes at intersecting public streets. 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three.years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. if needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. The property is within the Rose Harbor Nigh Level water System Area, which is available along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. Static water pressures will range from the low to mid 50's PSI within this area. Each unit will need to have individual water services per the requirements of RPU Water Division. Sanitary Sewer Is along Eastwood Road SE and would be available to serve the lots. The minimum fire flow for this development shall be no less than 1,000 gpm at 20 PSI. Page 5 General Development Plan#265 November 3,2005 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. Pedestrian facilities(10 foot wide bituminous path)will be required along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. The applicant shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City which addresses the Owner's obligation for the cost of constructing said path in the future. The property generally drains to the south. No storm water management facilities are proposed on the individual lots. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to the property being developed. Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. The property generally drains to the south. No storm water management facilities are proposed for the existing lots. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to the property being developed. Criteria G. Areas in DEOZ will be managed in such a way as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers and to protect discharge, interflow,and infiltration,and recharge processes taking place. According to the Bedrock Geology Map from the Geologic Atlas of Olmsted County the Decorah Shale is not the first encountered bedrock. The first encountered bedrock is the Galena Group consisting of the Cummingsville Formation which has a typical thickness of 65 feet. Criteria H. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. The lot and block layout appear to be consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100; however, the lots (Lots 5-7, Rose Harbor Third) will need to be resubdivided to create the six lots indicated on the GDP. The overall density appears to be generally consistent with the land use proposed for this property. Summarit& Recommendation: Based on the above criteria,staff would recommend that the following conditions should be imposed in order to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: Page 6 q 9 t- 4 General Development Plan#265 l • November 3,2005 1. The GDP shall be revised to identify a 10 foot wide bituminous path along the south side of Eastwood Road SE. 2. At the time of re-subdividing the existing lots the applicant shall dedicate the 7 feet in width of additional right of way for the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE as shown on the GDP. 3. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required prior to development of each lot. 4. At the time of re-subdividing,controlled access shall be dedicated along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE accept for the driveway openings approved by the Public Works Department. 5. Pedestrian facilities(10 foot wide bituminous path)will be required along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. The applicant shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City which addresses the Owner's obligation for the cost of constructing said path in the future. 6. All driveway approaches shall meet standard City approach design standards. 7. The public parkland dedication requirement for this development shall be in the form of cash in lieu of land. Dedication requirement is only for the increase number of dwelling units(3). • _ Y R OCIHESTER M� • TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Rochester, MN 55904 201 4t'Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FROM: Mark E. Baker FAX—507-281-6216 DATE: 10/27/05 REVISED APPLICA'X ION 3/27/06 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the REVISED application for General Development Plan#265,for the proposed Rose Harbor Third GDP. The following are Public Works comments on this request from 10/27/05. Revised comments based on the current application are indicated in BOLD,and 1. Pedestrian Facilities , are required along the entire frontage of this Property. The GDP should show the future pedestrian facility _ _ ,_and the execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement should be required of the Owner to address its obligations for the cost of constructing said facilities • eenstfueted said path iii the 2. Grading&Drainage Plan approval is required for this development. 3. The driveway's approaches for this development shall meet standard City approach design standards. 4. Public Works has no objection to approval of the requested design modification, to allow the proposed driveway spacing as shown on the revised GDP. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property for Sanitary Sewer& Watermain Connection,Services,and Storm Sewer have previously been paid for the J9749 City Project. Remaining charges for development include the following:. Sewer Availability Charge(SAC) @ $2,098.99 per acre Water Availability Charge(WAQ @ $2,098.99 per acre Transportation Improvement District Contribution-TBD C:\Documents and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK1C\GDP265 Rose Harbor 3rd GDP REVISED 3-06.doc i &ARecreatxool"4 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION Rochester Mn DEPARTMENT March 21, 2006 TO: Jennifer Gamess Planning RE: GDP #265 Rose Harbor Third Parkland dedication for the proposed develdpment to be in the form of cash in lieu of land. Dedication will be required only for the increase number of dwelling units (three units). • • OAPARK DEDICATIONMOMSE 2895\ROSE HARBOUR GDP.DOC 6 aa,sawrr . • rvr pledpr, xr drlwrr March 21, 2006 Rochester-Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester,MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED: General Development Plan#265 by DeWitz Construction to be known as Rose Harbor Third, Zone Change#05-15 to amend the zoning on Lots 5-7 Pose Harbor Third from R-1 to R-2,Design Modification#06-01 for driveways onto Eastwood Rd. SE which do not meet the spacing standards and Variance#06-06 to the front yard setback requirement. Dear Ms. Garness: I Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. This property is within the Rose Harbor High Level Water System Area,which is available along the entire frontage of Eastwood Rd. SE. 2. Static water pressures will range from the low to mid 50's PSI within this area. - 3. -In&vidual-water-services-mus-t-be-run-to-each dwelling--unit-per-our requirements with-the curb boxes. .. located in green spaces if possible and within the public ROW.All curb boxes that end up in a • pavement area require a curb box cover per City detail plate#01-08. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Mike Glenzinski, City Public Works Vance Swisher,Fire Prevention Gale Mount,Building&Safety McGhie&Betts,Inc. • DeWitz Contraction Rochester Public Utilities,4000 East River Road NE,Rochester,Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 TRANSPORTATION STAFF 1 • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REVIEW DATABASE-2006 l Jurisdiction Application Comments March 2006 City GDP#265,ZC The property is located along the south side of Eastwood Road SE,east Rose #05-15 of Hillcrest Court SE. The applicant is requesting design modification Harbor Yd to the requirements of driveways spacing standards onto Eastwood Road SE. The proposed development has been reviewed under the City of Rochester Land Development Manual for consistency with the policies and guidelines found in the Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG)2035 Long Range Transportation Plan,which has been adopted by the City of Rochester as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan.The review will address spacing standards requirements as per the Long Range Transportation Plan and ways to mitigate adverse`affects if the design modification is allowed. The existing daily traffic on Eastwood Road is more than 4000 and projected to be 5,700 in 2035 as per the ROCOG travel demand model. The Long Range Bikeway Plan recommended a dual bike path along Eastwood Road. - - - - - - - - - - - The-ROCOG 20355-L-ong Range Transportation Plan recognizes- Eastwood Road as Primary Urban Collector and the street design classification map shows this road as 2+median(left turn lane) with curb and gutter.The base ROW of this type of road is 115 feet if the surface drainage is to be maintained and 90 feet for urban style curb and gutter. 5 feet ROW for bikeway adjustment would be needed on both sides of Eastwood Road. The Local Street and Driveway Spacing guidelines in the Long Range Transportation Plan(Table 4-12c)recommends minimum of 1320 feet local street spacing on Primary Urban Collector in an Urban Influence Area and 330 feet in an all urban street spacing. The Plan recommends 125 feet for driveway spacing where speed limit is less than 35 MPH and 200 feet where speed limit is going to be between 35-40 MPH. Driveway spacing is recommended to be 330 feet if the speed Iimit is more than 45 MPH. • TRANSPORTATION STAFF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REVIEW DATABASE-2006 • Jurisdiction Application Comments 1. In summary the driveway access points as proposed in the GDP are approximately between 25-60 feet apart which would not meet the spacing requirements of the Long Range Transportation Plan. Shared access points as shown in Figure 1 is recommended. Figure t R3 .� 1 �.•_ _.__. ._.�^ -i -dam ai T , -T' I I R7 OEvE WI"T PUN - -city-- City • April,2006 City • ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Rochester, MN 55904 201 4"'Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FROM: Mark E. Baker FAX—507-281-6216 DATE: 10/27/05 The Department of Public Works has reviewed tote application for General Development Plan #265,for the proposed Rose Harbor Third GDP. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. Pedestrian Facilities,a ten(10)foot wide bituminous path,is required along the entire frontage of this Property. The GDP should show the future pedestrian path, and the execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement should be required of the Owner to address its obligations for the cost of constructed said path in the future. • 2. Grading&Drainage Plan approval is required for this development. 3. The driveway's approaches for this development shall meet standard City approach design standards. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property for Sanitary Sewer& Watermain Connection, Services,and Storm Sewer have previously been paid for the J9749 City Project. Remaining charges for development include the following: ❖ Sewer Availability Charge(SAC)@$2,098.99 per acre ❖ Water Availability Charge(WAC)@$2,098.99 per acre Transportation Improvement District Contribution-TBD • C:\Documents and Settings\plaigam\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Fi1es\0LK61\GDP265 Hose Harbor 3rd GDP 10- 05.doc i i The hand to reach for... DAVID A.KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: October TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R.Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: General Development Plan#265 by DeWitz Construction , to be known as Rose Harbor Third and Zone Change#05-15. With regard to the above noted project plan, the fire department has the following requirements: 1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and Installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction. The minimum fire flow for this residential development area shall be no less than 1,000 gpm at 20 psi. 2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning 4 Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. a) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width. b) . Streets less than 32 feet in width shall be posted"No Parking"on one side of the street. Streets less than 26 feet in width shall be posed"No Parking"on both sides of the street. 3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings. 4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3"high if located on a rural mail box at-the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended. c: Donn Richardson—RPU Water(e-mail only) Mark Baker—Rochester Public Works(e-mail only) DeWitz Construction McGhie &Betts, Inc(e-mail only) I we pledge, we deliver October 13, 2005 Rochester-Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester,MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: General Development Plan 4265 by DeWitz Construction to be known as Rose Harbor Third and Zone Change 905-15 to amend the zoning on Lots 5-7 Rose Harbor Third from R-1 to R-2. Dear Ms. Garness: t Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. This property is within the Rose Harbor High Level Water System Area,which is available along the entire frontage of Eastwood Rd. SE. 2. Static water pressures will range from the low to mid 50's PSI within this area. 3. Individual water services must be run to each dwelling unit per our requirements. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. . Very truly yours, 0644A WUCI Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang,RPU Mike Engle,RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher,Fire Prevention Gale Mount,Building&Safety McGhie&Betts, Inc. DeWitz Contruction Rochester Public Utilities,4000 East River Road NE,Rochester,Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 Page 2 • City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9,2005 d ' e thru facility to be located on Lot 1 Block 1 Think Plaza along the east side ofZest Circ Drive north of Members ParkwaV NW. Mr. Brent enby presented the staff report, dated November 3, 2005, to the C fission. The staff report is file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Ray Blessner, hitect for bdp Architects, addressed the Commis ' He stated that he has met with the engi rs and that a final grading plan should be s mitted within one week. With no one else wishing a heard, Mr. HaeussingerXcIde public hearing. -.:n(s' Wiesner moved to-,recomme approvaf oT Arbo um'especial Diszrtci rro�ect' .. z Development Plan (Final Plan)#05 by Think F" ral Credit Unjon with the staff ;. recommended findings and condition Ms ,i�� s seconded the motion The motion. canned 6 0 I CONDITIONS ' ji 1 :._Separate grading antl tlraina lan approvals ulredrprior to,anyconstruction :the site Storm water man men ..mu be provt and a storm;water management { , fee will apply for all imp sous surface areas of this ect that do not dram o an approved detention f ity F , 2 The applicants construct pedestnait facilities as;[equired rig the frontages of =the Property specific n i the Development Agreement _ 3 _The wa s stem shalt be looped and ubl►c easements de:d�cated e e y p P requ ents of RRU r = } 4 new City Owner contract will_be required poor to t.h..... 4.b orstruction of any pu c' ;infrastructure that was NOT included m the approved plans fior the prior City Own contract for_basic'construcfion.an.Think Plaza_ „ , h General Development Plan#265 by DeWitz Construction,to be known as Rose Harbor Third AND Zone Change#05-15,to amend the zoning of Lots 5, 6, and 7 Rose Harbor Third from R-1 to R-2. The applicant proposes to subdivide these lots to facilitate development of single family attached dwellings. The properties are located south of Eastwood Road SE, east of Hillcrest Court SE. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated November 2, 2005, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Rivas asked how the driveway would function. Mr.Svenby responded that they are conceptual drawings at this time. Mr. Bob DeWitz, of DeWitz Construction (60411'h Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901), addressed the Commission. He stated that Jeanie DeWitz would discuss what occurred at the neighborhood meeting that was held. • DISPOSAL OF TREES AND BRUSH In November 2004, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The text of the amendment is as follows: 61.200 SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES: The requirements of Sections 61.200 through 61.584 identify approvals that will be required to authorize any subdivision activity which is defined as a subdivision by statute or City ordinance. Any person seeking approval of subdivision activity, development activity or a conditional use permit must indicate whether there . will be burning of brush, trees or debris that will be cleared as part of the subdivision activity. In order to apply this provision,.you will need to indicate at the bottom of the page plans for disposal of trees, slash, and brush. Please sign and date the form. You must submit this information to the Planning Department prior to applying for a burning permit from the fire-De artmeht: -if fans Chan e rior to-obtainirr a burning will- • P P 9 F g 9 need to notify the Planning Department. Within this development as proposed through the development application, trees, slash, and brush will be disposed by: Burning on site ❑ Chipping on site ❑ Salvaging and removing from the property ❑ Other; describe in detail: J ,o(14o Signature of Applic t of Date Development Proposal RECEIVED OCT R,CHES TE R-� L2M00S5 .._.POD N NG DEPO TMEMT cAdocuments and settings\kristic\local settings\temporary internet files\o]0\1920-85.doc I � Page 3 • City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9,2005 Ms. Jeanie DeWitt addressed the Commission. She stated that one individual attended the neighborhood meeting and only expressed concern about the quality of people that could move into the neighborhood. Mr. Bob DeWitt expressed concern about dedicating 7 feet in width of additional right-of-way of the existing lots for the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. He explained that there is a 25 foot drop off in the back and that a 10 foot sidewalk would be within 15 feet of the existing homes. He stated that the sidewalk should be located on the other side of the street. Mr. DeWitt expressed concern with giving up 7 feet in width in front of the lots without getting something in return. He does not agree with staff-recommended condition 1 and 2, as listed in the staff report. Ms. Julie DeWitz showed diagrams of proposedi driveways. She explained that they proposed a turn-a-round for the residents to back out into instead of backing out into the street. Discussion ensued regarding driveway cuts. Ms.Wiesner asked Mr. Svenby of the possibility of taking the 7 foot right-of-way off the other side of the roadway. Mr. Svenby explained that the adopted Thoroughfare Plan shows that a total of 80 feet of right- - - -of-way-is-needed-for-Eastwood-Road;40 feet-on-each-side of the centerline.-The Hundred Acre- Woods Development, located to the west, dedicated 60 feet instead of 40 feet. • Mr. Svenby stated that the general development plan submitted to the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department clearly shows that the applicant intended to dedicate the additional 7 feet of right-of-way. Mr. DeWitz stated that it should not have been submitted that way. Mr. Burke asked if the applicant would have to dedicate the 7 feet if they were not going through the general development plan process. Mr. Svenby responded that the right-of-way being requested is to provide for adequate public facilities. The general development shown in the staff report was submitted by the applicant to the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. He explained that, if the applicant had submitted a plan that did not show.the dedication, staffs recommendation would not have been favorable to the request. Ms.Wiesner asked why a 10 foot bituminous path was being,requested. Mr. Svenby responded that it is shown along the south side of Eastwood Road SE in the recently adopted Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Bob DeWitz and Ms.Julie DeWitz argued that the bituminous path should not be located on their property. They suggested that, if the additional right-of-way is needed, the City should purchase the home from them. Ms. Rivas asked who owned the home. It Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9,2005 Mr. DeWitz responded that he owned the home. He explained that, since the City allowed R-3 across the street, he wasn't able to sell the home. Therefore, he rents it out at this time. Ms. Rivas asked if the Commission could forward the request with a recommendation that the issue be negotiated in a Development Agreement. Ms.Wiesner stated that there is a discrepancy of the proposed plan already showing the 7 feet of right-of-way. She stated that the applicant should discuss the problem with McGhie and Betts, since they submitted the plans for him. She asked Mr. DeWitz if he wanted to discuss this with McGhie and Betts first prior to the item being forwarded to the City Council. Mr. DeWitz asked that the Commission move the request forward to the City Council, With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Hgeussinger closed the public hearing. Ms.Wiesner stated that she did not agree with staff-recommended condition 1. She believed it should be on the other side of the roadway. Discussion ensued regarding the continuation of the bituminous path. Ms. Rivas asked if setbacks would be met if the applicant agreed with the additional 7 foot in right-of-way being dedicated. • Mr. Svenby explained that setback requirements are not reviewed at the general development plan process. Mr. Burke questioned what justified a difference in requiring the dedication (ex. size of property). Mr. Svenby stated that the Commission could change the.condition to read "At the time of re- subdividing the existing lots,the applicant shall dedicate the 7 feet in width of additional right-of- way or easement, to be determined by the City Council for the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE as shown on the GDP." M. Ohly moved to recommend approval o zone Change,#05 15 by DeWJtz Construction"` with the staff recommended findings Ms Wiesner seconded the motion Th'e`motion Mr Ohly'►noved to recommendiappcoval of.General 00velo "i Plan#265 by DeWitt aCn ctonYAL ti iljrl ii l honsrucion"t-`br.kw e ffrecommended findingksenn d , MrS�dydit mdtm re g secontled the motion, The motion,carried 6 0 CONDITIONS ' 1 The GDP shall be revised to identify a 10 foot wide brtuminotas path along the south side of Eastwood Road SE; r , 2 At the t�merof re subdi"�dmg theiexistmg lots,the appiicant'shall dedicate the 7 LL feet�n width of additional right of way or easement,to be determine;Pr kT4d by the City ;- _ r Counci[for the_entire fronta "e,of Eastwood'RoadSE as.shown_on the Page 5 • City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9,2005 3 Gradtn and Drama a Plan a royal'is re wired nor to develo meet of each lot 9 J Pp q P 4 At the time of re subdt��dmg,,controlled access shall be dedicated along the erttire' frontage of Eastwood Road SE accept for the tlnveway openings approved by the . Public Works Clepartment '` 5 Pedestrian fac�hties (1,0 foot wide bituminous path)will be requjred along the entire frontage of Eastwood Roatl SE The;applicant shall execute a Pedestrian Facihfies Agreement with the City which addresses the Owner' obl�gat�on for the..., cost of constructing said path m the future. 6 All driveway approaches shalt meet standard City approach tles�gn standards 7 The public parklantl dedication requirement forthis development shall be m the fo-rm of cash tn'lieu of land Dedication requirement is only for the increase i nramber of dwelling units (3) „ a nd Use Plan Amendment#05-08 and Zoning District Amendment#05-14 initiated bvpthe R' ester Plannin and Zonin Commission to amend the desi nation of land to ed alondiNbe east side of St. Bridget Road south of 40th Street SE and identified aSOOArea 4" in The Ckriens General Development Plan#261 from the "industrial" classiflooftinn and from M-1 Ned Commercial-Industrial zoning to "commercial" on the La se Plan and • B-1 Restricts ommercial on the Zonin-q Map. Mr.Svenby stated th he pond should have been included in the initi n to change from Industrial to the Comme ' 1 zoning district. Therefore, staff reques that the Commission extend the initiation to inclu the pond site. Mr ;Burke moved to continue: Use Plan Amendme #05 08 and Zonmg,'Distrtct:;', Amen,tlme"nt#05 14 initiated byth ochester Plann and Zoning Commission to; y > .:. DecemEier 14 2005 r,Mr:, n der seco ed_the m " n .The motion carned.6.=0 Ms;Rtvas-moved tole. te-d-d the initiation o nd Use Plan Amendment#05 OS and Zonin' District Amendment#05 14 tom de and Ms Wiesner seconded the 9 p .motion ,The,motio.n:carrted,6;.;'0 r iAl : Land Use Plan Amendment#05- and Zonin District endment#05-13 by Prairie Crossing, LLC to amend the Ughester Urban Service Ar Land Use Plan and Rochester Zoning Map to identifv apprifRimately 75.63 acres of land IoNted west of TH 52 and north of 65th Street NW for"c mercial" land uses and "M-1"'Mixe mmercial-Industrial Zoning. AND General Dev Zmentan 9264 to be known as Prairie Crossing West b airie Crossin C. The application proposes develo ment of approximatelv 75. cres of land IoSKed west of TH 52 and north of 65th Street with commercial land uses. Ne Plan iden ' es anew north/south public roadway,re-alignment of the west Fronta a Ro and future interchange as well as a new Menards retail store with associated parkinq.