Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 166-08 R y '+ Y to � r 5 i c t y YI. �{3✓~� r d y a. *r�a RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Joe Weis/Weis Development Corporation applied for a Restricted Development Permit #R2007-028CUP to construct two apartment buildings on the former Bachman's Nursery site. One apartment building would contain 67 units while the other would contain 51 units. Both buildings would have underground parking as well as surface parking. Access to the development would be off of loth Avenue N.W., 11t Avenue N.W., and from the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing Development. The property consists of approximately 2.41 acres and is located north of the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing Development, south of Washington School and along the east side of 11th Avenue N.W. This plan identifies a public alley in the undeveloped right-of-way of Tenth Street N.W; and, WHEREAS, since the property is zoned B-4 (General Commercial) and multi-family residential uses are not a use listed under permitted uses for the zoning district the applicant is proposing the development through the restricted development process; and, WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.700 recognizes that certain land uses which are generally not allowed within a given zoning district can, if regulated, "serve both the public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standard zoning regulations;" and, WHEREAS, this application requires a two-step review process consisting of a reliminary plan and a final plan. The preliminary plan phase follows the Type III, Phase II irocedure with a hearing before the Planning Commission and a hearing before the Council. The Applicant initially requested the waiver of the final plan review, but later withdrew that request; and, WHEREAS, R.C.O. § 62.708 (Criteria for Type III Developments) provides the relevant criteria for the review of this application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department applied the criteria found at Section 62.708 to this application and prepared the following findings of fact: 1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: a) Capacity of Public Facilities: City sewer and water, and other utilities are available to serve the site. The conditions of the pedestrian facilities along the frontages of the property will be reviewed by Public Works staff and any needed repairs and/or panel replacement will need to be completed concurrent with the construction of the buildings. b) Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the 1 • property. c) Natural Features: There are no known unique natural features at the site. The proposed development is the redevelopment of an existing site. d) Residential Traffic Impact: Access to the site is by way of 11tn Avenue NW which is designated as a Major Urban Arterial which is designated as a Major Urban Arterial on the Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) Thoroughfare Plan that - ---provides—access-to--the--surrounding—residential—and—commercial areas. The traffic projected to be generated from the development should not cause the traffic volumes to exceed capacities on local residential streets. The proposed residential use should not generate frequent truck traffic on the local residential street. The use will create additional traffic during the evening and nighttime hours on the local residential streets. e) Traffic Generation Impact: The anticipated traffic will not substantially increase the capacity of the adjacent roadways. f) Height Impacts: The proposed buildings heights would be • compatible with the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing complex located to the south and should not have any negative affects on the open space for Washington School or the single family residential dwellings located to the east. g) Setbacks: The proposed buildings would be consistent with the setback requirements for multi-family housing in the R-4 zoning district and exceed the setback requirements from any permitted use in the underlying B-4 zoning district. h) Internal Site Design: The layout of the buildings indicate adequate building separation and provide for a tot lot that is centrally located on the property between the two buildings. i) Screening and Buffering: The proposed buffering proposed appears adequate to provide screening and buffering for the adjacent single family residential dwellings located to the east. j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes 43% of landscape area which would be more than what would be required for a four-story multi-family residential structure in 2 • the R-4 zoning district. The proposed parking does not comply with the parking standards for multi-family residential dwellings. k) General Compatibility: The proposed use of the site does significantly change the appearance of the property going from a commercial use with little landscape area to a residential development with 43% landscape area. The character of the surrounding neighborhood should not be affected by this proposed use. The density (48.9 units/acre compared to 47.33 units/acre) is generally consistent with the multi-family residential dwelling - located to the-south-of-the-site—By-not-providing-a-public-roadway connection to Tenth Avenue N.W., and not designing the proposed public alley as a through street, the proposed development appears to become separated from the existing neighborhood and does not allow connectivity; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2008, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this restricted development preliminary plan, reviewed the application according to the requirements of Section 62.708, adopted the Planning Department's recommended findings of fact and recommended approval of the application subject to the following conditions: • 1. The site plan must be revised so as to: A. Provide a public sidewalk along the north side of the alley connecting Tenth Avenue N.W., and 11 th Avenue N.W; B. Bring parking off of the alley into compliance with R.C.O. §63.455(H); and, C. Identify the location for the relocated bus stop along 11th Avenue N.W. 2. Prior to the issuance of any development permits for the site, the applicant shall have an executed Access Agreement with the property to the south granting access through the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing property to serve the development. 3. Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to development, as well as, payment of any applicable Storm Water Management Area Charge for any increase in impervious surface. 4. The condition of Pedestrian Facilities along the frontages of the Property will be reviewed by Public Works staff and any needed repairs and/or • 3 • panel replacement shall be completed concurrent with construction of this building project. 5. There is a reconstruction project proposed for the 11th Avenue NW frontage of this Property. The Owner should coordinate any utility services needed for its project with the City. The Owner will be subject to a development charge / assessment, for its proportional share of the reconstruction costs, and execution of an Assessment/Contribution Agreement is required. —dal--existing-water-servi to-the-site-o used�ha"e-disconnected-a` the main per the requirements of RP U -Water Division. 7. The applicant shall coordinate any utility services needed for the project with and City and dedicate the necessary public utility easements for the ' serves required for the buildings. 8. Execution of a city-owner contract and dedication of all applicable public easements is required prior to construction of any public improvements to serve the project. 9. Plans and profile sheets shall be provided to the City detailing the • construction of the roadway located within the right-of-way prior to final plan approval. 10. An easement will be needed over the sidewalk south of the parking lot and the proposed 10th Street to allow for public use. WHEREAS, on March 17, 2008, the Common Council held a public hearing on the restricted development preliminary plan request and permitted all interested persons to be heard. A copy of the material presented to and considered by the Council is attached and identified as Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, at the March 17th public hearing, the Council amended condition #1 so as to read as follows: 1. The site plan must be revised so as to: A. Provide a public sidewalk along the north side of the alley connecting Tenth Avenue N.W., and 11th Avenue N.W. Alternatively, the applicant and Independent School District #535 can mutually agree to relocate the sidewalk, the proposed retaining wall, the fence and the green space as the parties see fit; and • 4 • B. Bring parking off of the alley into compliance with R.C.O. §63.455(H); and, WHEREAS, at the March 17th public hearing, the Council added two conditions of approval so as to read as follows: 11. A revocable permit shall be required for the construction of the retaining wall and fence within the public right-of-way easement. Maintenance of the retaining wall and the fence shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 12 The 11 public parking snots along the northern portion of the alley must be eliminated; and, WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence submitted at the March 17th public hearing, the Common Council adopted the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommended findings of fact and determined that the Applicant satisfied the criteria of Section 62.708 if the above 12 conditions were satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the Restricted Development #R2007-028 CUP, requested by Joe Weis/Weis Development, is in all things approved subject to the above 12 conditions. • PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS /7n4 rY OF RP-d l , 2008. ATTEST: PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS /&fit DAY OF mokm , 2008. �Aa MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) Zone05\RestDevPre.0728 rev 0 INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM NEIGHBORS • • EX1k l8►T n A• II t OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 102 STATE CAPITOL LORI SWANSON February 29, 2008 Sr.PAUL,MN 55155 ATTORNEY GENERAL TELEPHONE:t651)29"196 • Mr. Bill Engelking RECEIVED 902 11 th Avenue NW #302 Rochester,MN 55901 MAR 4 2 Z008 Dear Mr. Engelking: R0 CH.EST=R-cLVST=c 1 thank you for your correspondence dated February 6,2008. You indicate that a city is considering selling or giving away a 40-foot easement to an adjoining landowner. You note that the city has a 40-foot platted street but that the street was never opened. The street is apparently located at the edge of a plat adjoining only one lot located within that plat. You note that the city is interested in selling or giving the easement to an adjoining owner whose lot is located outside of the plat which contains the street. You ask for any feedback I can give you on this topic. First, when a public street is vacated, the landowners on either side of the street generally receive title to the centerline of the street_ However, when a street is located at the edge of a plat but entirely within one plat, title reverts to the lot owners within the same plat and abutting the street. See in Re: Petition of BuildingD, 502 N.W. 2d 406, 408 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (copy enclosed). Second, I am not aware of any Minnesota law which would permit a city to sell or give • away a platted street, or transfer it in any manner except through a vacation process. Because this is a complicated area of law, however, and because this Office is not familiar with all the facts of the situation, and this Office is not authorized to provide legal advice to citizens, you may want to discuss this issue with a private attorney. If you cannot identify an attorney to advise you, the Minnesota State Bar Association's Attorney Referral Service is available on the Internet at vv%,w.mnfindalawyer.com. If you do not have Internet access, it may be available at your nearest public library. if you select an attorney through the referral service, you should ask about any initial consultation fee since the fees vary. I thank you again for your correspondence. Sincerely, LORI SWANSON Attorney General Enc.: Petition of BuildingD, 502 NW 2d 406, 408 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) AG:111958389-v 1/389440/1S Facsimile:(651)297-4193•TrY.(651)297-7206•To]]Free Lines:(800)657-3787(Voice),(800)366-4812(T'IY)•www.ag.state.nuixs An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity sma—mpo.m OPrinted on SM recycled paper(15%post consumer contene RIECEIVE,D (Cite as: 502 N.W.2d 406) PEAR 12 2008 gin between two plats, §ut eflrljrria Petition of Building D,Inc. reverted to owner of Minn.App.,1993. was within the same plat as the street. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. [2]Boundaries 59 E':-48(1) In the Matter of the PETITION OF BUILDING D, INC.,Building E, Inc.and Building N,Inc.,for 59 Boundaries Certain Relief in Connection with Certificate of 59I1 Evidence, Ascertairanent, and Establish- Title N. 171977. ment No.C8-93-5. 59k48 Recognition and Acquiescence 59k48(1)k.In General.Most Cited Cases July 6, 1993. Disputed boundary between two pieces of proppqy eview Denied Aug. may be established under doctrine of practical loca- tion of boundaries by recognition and acquiescence Owner of lot on north side of vacated street peti- on part of parties and their predecessors; effect of tioned for order establishing title in it to entire dis- finding practical location is in many respects simil- puted part of vacated street adjoining lot. The Dis- ar to acquiring tide by adverse possession. trict Court, St. Louis County, David S. Bouschor, J., found that owner of lot on south side of vacated 13]Records 326 4D-9(13.1) street owned one half of disputed part of vacated street since boundary had been established under 326 Records doctrine of practical location at center of vacated 3261 In General street. Owner of lot on north side appealed. The 326k9 Registration of Titles to Land Court of Appeals, Kalitowski, J., held that doctrine 326k9(13.1) k. Matters Affecting Re- of practical location of boundaries did not apply to gistered Title.Most Cited Cases vacated street which was registered property since (Formerly 326k9(131/4)) • no claim was made that certificate of title was am- Though in limited circumstances doctrine of prae- biguous and no dispute existed as to location of tical location of boundaries may be applied to re- boundaries at time property was registered. gistered property, application of doctrine to vacated street was prohibited under statute precluding ac- Reversed. quisition of title to registered property by prescrip- tion or adverse possession, where adjoining lots West Headnotes were registered, there was no claim that certificate of title was ambiguous, and no dispute existed as to [1]Municipal Corporations 268 E:-657(7) location of boundaries at time adjoining lot in the same plat was registered, since street was then still 268 Municipal Corporations a public easement.M.S.A. § 508.02. 268XI Use and Regulation of Public Places, Property,and Works *406Syllabus by the Court 268XI(A)Streets and Other Public Ways 268k657Vacation or Abandonment The doctrine of practical location of boundaries 268k657(7) k. Operation and Effect. does not apply to registered property absent an am- Most Cited Cases biguous certificate of title or a dispute as to the loc- Upon.vacation of street, city's easement was extin- ation of boundaries at the time the property was re- guished and title to dedicated street located at mar- gistered. ©2008 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. • https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLW8.02&destination=atp&prft=H... 2/20/2008 RECEIVED Daniel D. Maddy, Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith & cessor, filed a joint etiti n K4914 MRanan Frederick, P.A., Duluth, for appellant Building N, Street. The petitionsated that the vacated stmet Inc. would "be used by yot pefifi6iiesi uFthCe n Charles H. Andresen, Bryan N. Anderson, Crass- of the use of their respc=ve' weller, Magie, Andresen, Haag & Paciotti, P.A., areas and will facilitate the use of said property." In Duluth,for respondent Arrowhead Elec.,Inc. December 1961, the vacation petition was granted by the Duluth City Council. Because the vacation Considered and decided by KLAPHAKE, P.J., and of Buchanan Street was not filed, it did not appear KALITOWSKI and SCHULTZ,F"'JJ. on appellant's certificate of title until 1990. Shortly after Buchanan Street was vacated, re- FN* Retired judge of the district court, spondent and one of appellanfs predecessors erec- serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of ted a fence and gate perpendicular to the streeL Appeals by appointment pursuant to While appellant's predecessors removed their part Minn.Const.art.VI,§ 10. of the fence from the northerly one-half of --• Buchanan Street_approximately one year later, re- spondent retained its part of the fence on the south- OPINION erly one-half until the early 1980s. Respondent also created five parking spaces perpendicular to its KALITOWSKI,Judge. building and used a part of the vacated street for Building N, Inc. appeals from a judgment employee parking. entered by the district court determining that under the doctrine of practical location of boundaries by In 1989, appellant purchased Lots 1 and 2. In acquiescence respondent Arrowhead Electric, Inc. pertinent part, the warranty deed conveys the fol- was the owner of the southerly one-half of vacated lowing property to appellant Buchanan Street. [t]hat part of vacated Buchanan Street in COW- ELLS ADDITION TO DULUTH, abutting upon Lot 2, LAKE AVENUE, COWELL'S ADDITION *407 FACTS TO DULUTH, Lot 1, MINNESOTA AVENUE, COWELL'S ADDITION TO DULUTH, and Lot • Appellant is the owner of Lot 2, Lake Avenue, 299,MINNESOTA AVENUE,UPPER DULUTH. Cowell's Addition to Duluth, and Lot 1, Minnesota Avenue, Cowell's Addition. The lots are adjoining, Appellant's certificate of title gives it title to with Lot 2 lying to the east of Lot 1. Lot 1 was re- Lot 2 "according to the plat thereof on file and of gistered in 1910 and Lot 2 was registered in 1923. record in the office of the Register of Deeds." Buchanan Street runs along the southern boundaries of Lots 1 and 2 and was dedicated in 1856. In April 1991, appellant and other parties not involved in this appeal filed a petition subsequent Respondent is the owner of the easterly 88 feet to initial registration requesting, among other of Lot 300, Lake Avenue, Upper Duluth. Adjoining things, an order establishing title in favor of appel- Lot 300 on the west is Lot 299, Minnesota Avenue, lant to vacated Buchanan Street and directing the Upper Duluth. Lot 300 lies to'the south of Lot 2 Registrar of Titles to issue a new certificate of title and Buchanan Street runs along the northern to that effect. By order filed October 30, 1991, the boundary of Lot 300. The disputed part of district court granted appellant the relief requested, Buchanan Street lies between Lot 300 and Lot 2. except that relating to the part of vacated Buchanan Street lying between Lot 2 and Lot 300. In 1961, the owners of Lots 1, 2, 299, and 300, who included respondent and appeIlanfs. prede- 0 2008 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLW 8.02&destination=atp&prft=H... 2/20/2008 The parties thereafter stipulated and agreed to here, the owners of the properties within the plat refer the matter to the district court, Appellant and abutting the street own the entire street. Edge- claimed title to all of vacated Buchanan Street be- water Cottage Assn v. Watson, 387 N.W.2d 216, cause the street was taken entirely from Cowell's 218 (Minn.App.1986). Thus, when Buchanan Addition plat. Respondent claimed title to the Street was vacated in 1961, the City's easement southerly one-half of disputed Buchanan Street un- was extinguished and the land occupied by the der two alternative theories: practical location of street reverted to appellant's predecessors, who boundaries by acquiescence or practical location of owned Lots 1 and 2,Cowell's Addition.See id. boundaries by .estoppel. The district court con- sidered the matter on the parties' written submis- [2) Respondent claims title to the southerly sions. one-half of disputed Buchanan Street under the doctrine of practical location of boundaries. A dis- The district court found that (1) appellant and puted boundary between two pieces of property its predecessors "treated the center line of the va- may be established under this doctrine by recogni- cated street as the boundary line for some ence on the part of the parties and years;" (2) respondent's use of the disputed prop- their predecessors. Engguist v Wir jes, 243 Minn. erty was not contested until 1991; (3) since vaca- 502, 506, 68 N.W.2d 412, 416 (1955). The effect of tion of the street in 1961, respondent has had ex- finding a practical location is in many respects, elusive control over the disputed property, and (4) similar to acquiring title by adverse possession. Id. appellant's predecessors and respondent at 507 68 N.W.2d at 417. "understood that upon vacation of Buchanan Street, each would become the owner of 30 feet of the [3] By statute, title to registered property may street abutting their respective properties." Based not be gained by adverse possession or prescription. on these findings,the district court concluded: Minn.Stat. § 508.02 (1992). Nevertheless, the doc- That the boundary between the two pieces of trine of practical location has been applied in some property has-been established by the acquiescence instances to determine boundaries to registered of the parties under the doctrine of practical loca- property. In Moore v. Henricksen, 282 Minn. 509, tion, and *408 that said boundary is the center of 515-16, 165 N.W.2d 209, 215 (1968) and Min- the vacated Buchanan Street. neapolis & St. L. Ry. a Ellsworth,.237 Minn. 439, 44445, 54 N.W.2d 800, 804 (1952), the supreme This appeal followed entry of judgment. court allowed application of the doctrine when the original registration proceeding did not determine the boundary lines and the basis for the boundary ISSUE dispute existed at the time of the original registra- tion Did the district court err in applying the doe- 53, proceeding. In In re Zahradka, 472 N.W.2d (Minn.App.1991), pet, for rev. denied trine of practical location of boundaries by acquies- (Minn. Aug. 29, 1991), this court applied the doc- cence to this case? trine of practical location to resolve a conflict between two certificates of title which could be ANALYSIS read to include the same property. - In Konantr a Stein, 283 Minn. 33, 36, 167 [1) Appellant claims title to all of vacated N.W.2d 1, 4 (1969), the supreme court indicated Buchanan Street. Upon vacation, title to a dedic- that once title is registered, it is impossible to there- ated street does not necessarily vest in all abutting after acquire title to the registered land by holding landowners. When a street is located at the margin adversely to the registered owner. If, however, title between two plats, but entirely within one plat, as FIREC.EI�-ED ©2008 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt. Work . R_r.���r • https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs=VvLW 8.02&destination=atp&prft=H... 2/20/2008 is obtained prior to the registration proceeding through adverse possession or practical location of a boundary line, then the registration proceedings R ECEIVED ED • cannot extinguish that interest.Id. 1 2 �00� These cases illustrate that, in limited circum- stances, the doctrine of practical location of bound- ROCHEST_R_COASTED cries may be applied to registered property. c �'r r•r_- aY ,c� However, in this case there is no claim that the cer- tificate of title is ambiguous. Nor did respondent or its predecessors claim title to the disputed part of Buchanan Street prior to the time Lot 2 was re- gistered in 1923. At that time, Buchanan Street was still a public easement: The basis for the dispute in this case did not arise until 1961, when Buchanan j' Street was vacated and its title reverted to appel- lant's predecessors as the owners of Lots 1 and 2. We conclude respondent's claim to one-half of the disputed part of Buchanan Street is prolubited under Minn.Stat. § 508.02 ("No title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or by.adverse pos- session.'�. Under the undisputed facts of this case, the doctrine of practical location of boundaries does not apply. DECISION The judgment of the district court is reversed. • Appellant is entitled to have the disputed part•of Buchanan Street added to *409 the legal description on its certificate of title. Reversed. Minn.App.,1993. Petition of Building D,Inc. 502 N.W.2d 406 END OF DOCUMENT m 2008 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. https://web2.westlaw.con/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLW8.02&destination=atp&prft=H... 2/20/2008 :t4 ,ri The Rochester Public Schools Independent School District#535 -w 615 7th St.SW•Rochester,Minnesota 55902-2052 Business Services• Telephone(507)328-4210 •FAX (507) 328-4204 February 21,2008 Theresa Fogarty,Senior Planner Brent Svenby,Senior Planner Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE,Suite 100 Rochester,MN 55904474442 Re: Vacation Petition R2008-004VAC by Rochester School District#535,and Re: Revised Type III,Phase II Restricted Development R2007-02SCUP by Weis Development Corp This letter is being submitted as written comment for both of the issues listed above which are to be addressed at the City Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting/hearing on February 27,2008. The School District is looking at this issue from the aspect of safety for the students who attend Washington Elementary School. The School District received a letter dated December 6,2007 from Joseph Weis regarding the use of the public right-of-way.In that letter it was stated that,"While reviewing our project,the City staff informed us this street would never be built."It is on that basis that the School District has submitted the vacation petition. When looking at current Minnesota guidelines for new elementary school construction,a school with the student enrollment the size of Washington Elementary School would require a site with a minimum of fifteen acres.The size of the existing site is 5.83 acres,according to our records.The area covered by the public right-of-way has been used over the years for physical education classes and recess.Outside of the school day,the ball diamonds and soccer fields are used for athletic programs from John Marshall High School and other Rochester area athletic teams.The right-of-way area is used by spectators of those events.This space also serves as a buffer between student play areas and neighboring commercial property- When looking at the Washington Elementary School location,the south side.of the property is the only side where there is no traffic concern from a student safety aspect.There are streets on the other three sides of the site.Putting a street or a public use alley along the south side of this school site would not only take away the current student use of that green space,but would also reduce the usable green space that is currently owned by the District.We would have to re-create the safety buffer zone between the play area and the new street and traffic flow. In viewing the proposal of Weis Development Corporation,the request for an alley access appears to be a misuse of a public right-of-way for a private development purpose,and not a public purpose as should be intended.Therefore,we arezequesting the granting of the vacation of the public right-of-way and denial of the request to construct a street or alley. Sincerely, + Q. b, RECEIVED Sheri Allen 104 • �y Director of Elementary FEB 2 1 2008 smith Interim Director of Business Services and Secondary Education ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLAN'N1NG DEPARTMENT KNo O U 1200 11tg Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901-1715 �, �..� (507) 328-3800 http://www.rochester.kl2.mn.us/schoollO2 • Fostering a thirst for knowledge s o a 00 February 20, 2008 Brent Svenby, Senior Planner Re: Request by Weis Corp to build Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner an alley on undeveloped right-of-way at City Planning and Zoning Commission 1 Om Street NW Rochester Government Center and 151 4t'Street SE Re: Request by Rochester Public Schools Rochester, Minnesota vacate that same right-of-way Dear Mr. Svenby and Ms. Fogarty: I am writing in opposition to a request by Weis Development Corp to construct a public alley on the undeveloped right-of-way at the south end of Washington School's property. The public land in question has been used by the school and community for athletic and recreational purposes for more than fifty years. When weather permits, it is used as part of the lap track for cardiovascular conditioning for all of our students. When the adjacent baseball diamonds and soccer fields are used for athletic events by John Marshall High School and Rochester Athletic teams, the land in question is used by parents and other observers who come to watch the games. The field adjacent to the land is used throughout the day for physical education classes and recess for the 360 children, ages 5-11, who • attend Washington School. Building an alley or road at that location would create a safety hazard for our students as traffic from both the 118-unit apartment complex and the neighborhood to the east of the school would be traveling within feet of our playing children. The lot on which Washington School is located is already smaller than the recommended lot size for a school of our capacity. The use of the public land at the south end of our fields has brought our usable space closer to the recommended guidelines. It has also provided a safety zone to separate our students from the commercial property south of the school. It makes more sense to officially vacate that property to the school than to construct a road or alley that would contribute to the danger of our students. I have no strong objections to the construction of the Washington Village complex as long as the access to the complex is to the south, east, and west of the buildings. Changing that plan to bring the traffic access to the north side so close to our students and asking us to forfeit the use of land to which we have always had access is the reason for my concern. Please deny the Weis Corp request. Instead, I urge you to grant the school district's petition to vacate the land in question for the continued use by Washington School and our surrounding neighbors. Sincerely, �ear4i� RECEIVED Ab Linda Stockwell, Principal • FEB Washington Elementary School 2 0 2008 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED P 4NN1NG DEPARTMENT NO.734 P.2 _... JOHN MARSHALL SENIOR HIGH 151014th Street NSW„Rochester,MN osgol.0244 MOW(507)328-5400 Fax(5o;)329.5295 Office of the Principal February 22,2008 Theresa Fogarty,Senior Planner Brent v y,Senior Planner — Rochester-Olmsted Planning Depmttn= 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester,MN 55904-474442 Re:Vacation Petition R2008-004VAC by Rochester school District#535,and Re:Revised Type III,Phase Il Restricted Development R2007-02SCUP by Weis Development Corp This letter is being is being submitted as written comment for both of the issues ova which the City Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting/homing on Feb are to be addressed at the need for ruary 27,2008. John School is looking at the issue from the aspect of safety and " our student/athletes High practice and occasionally play a competition on. �space,, to John Marshall high School,as well as Washington Elementary School,are n eigborhood hools and art• on very small acreages by today's standards. A school the size of John Marshall High Schooll would require a tioned Minim=of sixty acres under current guidelines set by the State of Minnesota and the Education for new school construction. John Marshall High School has just less than f lvlmnc as Deparbmnt of forty acres are used for parking and the footprint of the school. This situation has left limited ted gand much of our Physical education and athletic programs to use during the school day. "men space"for Some of the John Marshall High School activities that use the Washington Blemen softball. The south,side of the ro tary site are football,soccer and Practice and where all spectators will ud during a compere etition. I also know the the Rochester will Wlit for their student � 'Youth Footballete at the end of a Association uses Washington)elementary as a practice site and I have seen youth baseball and softball at that site in the summer. John Marshall High School believes that placing a street or alley on the south side of Washington Elementary School property would be a student and public safety concern. Along with that major concerti u the reduction of the limited it space"that Washington.Elementary has at this time. We believe it is in the best interests of the community that We continue to have vibrant neighborhood schools in Rochester,which offer as much space as possible for students and the rest of the public to use. ' a p bl view the proposal of Weis Dcvelopment Corporation,the request for an alley access appears to be a misuse of a public right-of-way for a private development purpose,and not a public purpose as should be Marshall High School is requesting the grating of the vacation of the public right-of--way and denial of ho request hn to constrict a street or alley. S' carely, Richard Stun Principal equal Opportunity Employer A.L 0 Page'1 of 1 Fogarty Theresa From: FredDalyll@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:24 PM • To: Fogarty Theresa Subject: Revised Type III, Phase II restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Joe Weis Weis Development approached the school district about selling them our interest in the street right-of-way a few months P PP 9 9 Y ago.The school board turned him down because we need the land for our school programs and have no interest in selling. Now Weis is trying to wrest control of the land by getting it to be declared a public alley even thought it obviously is just to be an entrance and parking lot for his development. The Washington School property is 5.83 acres. State guidelines call for a school this size to be at least 14 acres.-We are already short on green space and giving up a good portion of it just is not will be detrimental to our programming.Washington School just received a Presidential Award as one of the very best schools in our nation. I ask you not take an action that could hurt one our nations finest schools. The school board has received considerable input from the neighborhood confirming they don't want the right-of-way to become a street, alley, or private parking lot. The latest plan I have seen calls it a public alley but any reasonable person can see it is just a private driveway with parking for the development's apartments. Weis Development knew the size-of the property when they bought it.They should develop a project that fits on the property they own.To covet your neighbor's property is bad enough but to try taking it over after your neighbor has declined to sell is just plain nasty. Please do not approve this application. Fred Dalyri • RECEIVED FE, 20200$ Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters.Watch the video on AOL Livin ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PL.�NNiNG DEPARTMENT 2/20/2008 • January 21, 2008 Ardell Brede Q C� tf z,�_Y 653 16t1i Street SW Rochester MN 55902 Fred Daly 216 751h Street NW Rochester MN 55091 Request for a$sistame As you know, Washington Elementary School is located just north of the former Bachman/Carousel greenhouse on 1 Ith Ave NW. Weis Builders purchased the greenhouse property to build high-rise apartments.It appears the project is too big for the site because the school district was approached give up some land so Weis could construct a parking lot. The property is an easement for a one-block extension of I O'h Street NW which was platted but never built early last century.Weis asked the school district to consider selling the land so Weis could ask the city to vacate the easement and allow the high-rise property to expand north. • The school board voted to not enter into negotiations because we don't want to sell the properly. The Washington site is already half the size the Minnesota Department of Education guidelines require for this size school. The site is crowded already. Also, Washington School just won a Presidential Blue Ribbon Award as one of the outstanding schools in the nation. It makes no sense to out the size of out star school. Now I hear Weis has approached the City/County Planning Commission to ask that I Orh Street NW be extended to I Ith Ave NW. Since we won't sell, they are asking the city to take the property from us. This would put a city street right next to our playground and softball field. We also have a running path that goes through this property that gets much use as part of the districts wellness policy. These are the tactics that give developers a bad reputation. Weis knew the size of the property when they bought it. TIiey designed a project too large for the property then coveted their neighbor's properties both north and south. When the school district declined to sell, Weis decided to ask the city to take it from us. Could the city council please let the planning commission know that the school district really does need this land and does not want it turned into a street? It has been school grounds for over 50 years and serves as a buffer between our playground and commercial properties. • Fred Daly Rochester School Board Phone 282-7036 e-mail freddalyll a,aol.corn 10/4/2007 10:54 FROM: Fao Washington PTA TO: 2E1-1468 PAGE: 0` 'r 002 The Washington PTA has gathered •g r d this information per your request. Washington Elementary school is located at 1200 11`h Avenue Northwest in Rochester. Our school has 359 students from kindergarten through fifth grade. Eighty-nine percent of our students ride the bus to and from school. Ten percent are dropped off and picked up in cars,and one percent walk. We have six busses which drop off children between 8:30 AM and 9:00 AM and pick them up between 3:15 PM and 3:45 PM. Morning kindergarten students are picked up between 11:45 AM and 12:00 PM. Afternoon kindergarten students arrive between 12:30 PM and 12:45 PM. We also have a group of trained third,fourth and fifth graders who do safety patrol on the front side(across 11a' avenue)and behind the school(12a'street and 10t'avenue). We have a school child-care --- program before and after school which serves about fifteen children between 6:30 AM and 9:00 AM,and twenty children between 3:15 PM and 6:00 PM Also,twenty children come to school early for breakfast which is served from 8:45 AM to 9:00 AM. We have many after-school programs,some with over one hundred students,that meet on various days throughout the year,usually from 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM. If you need any further information please contact one ofthe Washington PTA officers. Washington PTA President:Melissa Mergen Co-Vice-Presidents:Heidi Rubin and Jennifer Tweed Secretary.Michelle Stepanek Treasurer.Val Kaliszewski Additional PTA contacts: • Amy Dyer — Jane Lundquist II • -- Re: Washington V!Ila. e This property is zoned B-4 It dies not allow residential units A more appropriate use would be the commercial purpose for which it was zoned Shops or offices Drug store Senior citizens center School exn.pa�ns.on. A restricted development is being proposed It's not very restricted It proposes 118 apartment units on a small piece of land, over 450 people This is an extreme density Where;,zoning doesn't allow If this density were applied to my prQpbrty, I could have a 12-plex on a quarter acre It does not match with the neighborhood density Spread out in the neighborhmod,�'t would cover 5 %square blocks. See map pg 52, highlighted area It does not match up with the neighborhood building heights All 2 story or less except fox one; See map pg 53 It does not even fit on its own site. It borrows property from the neighbors to the south and the north with no buffer! See site plan pg 19 It adds additional traffic to the neighborhood road that encircles Washington school. The additional evening and ni&time traffic on the residential directly violates the zoning ordinance criteria. 62.708 1-,d-3 Therefore, if this project is not outright rejected, it should be redesigned so that it fits in the scope and scale of the nigh�orhood, sets on its own lot,delivers traffic to I 1 m Av and is buffered from the neighbolhood. Lyle PIumhoff Washington School Neighbor 10109"AvN ' • "nt'� t3zuol!•1. "JI -W 'ilk Ai Cam,. hl LL kl� A� dYa • 0 R. NO Ai�3P WA UAF All ----M JiJ-J-.Q�m N rflz-A 5 74, Ll 0 ILI ki "T ViX . REiV- r. LY; 41 DM I mill", PO'rdW IS R11-115 I OF M In�-p 04"log �miat--s", won Ric N "MR p�—��—JJrY:���ur�..,.�}�}}a����111 '�' ;I�ia,, ��(�r_��p�• ity.�3 RI .t `� ' I -�tr�.s �h � "�s""Ii lik -MS M O Or it*R Ric tkiiY JAI M14 INA W,MI . J. 1 13, RIM y A5: I n 11 I f UP AM, ME ..........1, a L FIEF im"WR R VA.... ....... r .n-��qq ;7'�,,����yy ��•,��y�� A t k r�r•• \i�•� tF '� n. � ,� s' , � r •,,� y:.� � : t�,�t +� ;, �•_C . � �..� .,q: a,'ral 11101 sir�1..� ty,.tJp' 6 ,,.r- [sfi -MKJ ['P • 'S4 �:. W�!''W'fl~ �Li ri +'J ILF�liar 7 �"n' `• 41tr j9J �:A c �' i r t � .�iYl[ L�tt,, ��p '1 • - �] r, ,- � � ; It �r�:. 1 a ,, '�•��- IYi�,- �!#it �yl ,,rrc..,§�k;:tk9�; t ��•'-- �rt � �A 1` a`ia: *"`474 u'v�' i#xs •; `; �`�,il� 7•�;'v"�, �L�'.�.�. m: f ,�.'"��;� �t �7 trr.W a ,,!t���j���i�' S�•�'I clt. �• �-t.rr -� " g�vf �• w•: , -� } �'�. �air •;:' �• [� � ,�r;:E � FYt•Y �f. � -?�p r�rr�il-Y-,i trlte7847'Y!1>t+J .- .n��� . `�'-i,.Y �''� � I -.,+ � I � i� I� tom. i" +"�'�' '4 �:7_'�.• ' .c`I +3 4P. �.,-' ,[• rj' t.CV�.-,� +• y1� {... j. Fyn .fit tF, 1p{r { '�+1�.�'�f ®� * rA, ryl. ^" '�• N ' `'elf ', '2F'..'�j (l` f • [I.�'r.Y KJIiI1�ol LS' __ dddllf""' ✓ t 1' `p �P �[' i 1,i -•,• �fLl 1J'^ G.:YSay-1 '4 y;711 k ,'j�lrtal t� ?�"n!t �P]� , It1yf - j _;' �.. WC.-f�a'+ 'n1 y` A - Id:."'`�,�`•�j`t7p�. '7Jl� yj� r,:. i+1 .1-,'�'1,:�.�1,'y DID t� 4 Rr:, �.\OWwl4 , �, . IMi" '�' u� 7'29�V j�' L4✓ ��6�I � R ..�G��:�,1��,,=ya i 1`. WIN °1 y ey;l}i: 7 � '� } 1p�r 4., �'.v4' -a;.,•.' l 4,�. } § 'h•A-'t' j Rt tom' 1'cl`: 7� (�+rl�d •_ S'r,�.�F;Yti 7 .9 f� � �L. ��C ...i�•,�nji.�T4'�'J�`'tl ��•1 r_Jl'ir �^�gi �t-�!�!�� 14...'��l�.yP7" �9� eL�� 'B.M��7 '�. ' A'�• �� fir; �:,� a ,�F --'S'1 - '1c , --, � t � s''i-IN IMAM..j, �E 6 R[y ;'mm 1 F�•+ �o �.:u•;�Ojp @IF�y i � WE A a G,. �p NEW,; ,[ {{6pp;�y {Al'tRiYlY1`P •,'`mot 6Ed ` 1,. � 4-It; �i,.. taL l/ du Bt� •FI:1` 'Y I7�:G� :It'��"�1 F,-. 1�� � .v; .t .. �• ° -kl � ,..,d�l,ti (F,le t{Li'IfE4'' °�tf `'�1 �4'{�'r��.��._ ' ` `r• t ,yy-,��,��,���! ��F'�- ' r �••f {, I 4�5�A� ��+„ r- 'j � :1 �rR:1: .:yr,,. t.•7.... 1 .�" pip _ RIM �e„ .N '•- . `. �( ,' ti :�l ' sir[;,n � ' d ELti l � [� iyd .en ; ► E �'.::�' , �,e� jJ++:,'",�91L•'si+' , -t'1F'',�'.`.t' ia. f,,•lt' ;# t•ti'pt�, tY (,_1 •s 1 l - -+U:- � 1 � ts•�r {�,g�, y���[�a i.'� er". �` i �[7' s+:. , 4f`�xFii l ry`]��a'Y 1�': �['r,�l�i"• U. �l�, � >a;. + P - t�'+: y�� 'Y S .r..[. ���L�'��r1�:3' [�1!'C'�'"�I�tz7lYJPMI�Y �f[,. n r "r '.!, v LJ -.y�W{� 5'Y;AW '� [ i7�-'�:.� � 9°C + ` +rS-�./ 'Td �- , 1 `v k:' t � u'i r _ l � F - „nY �t�Niow rj _ 1 , t�' F - '� II i rdt ,,;� .i. �" i^xc:.a � •{.'.. �:�`.,i�$Nir _ ��.rA�!I 1�m t"" - � y •y � .a .A'�.4i ill $et'. 'c`'� SL•Y�I.>dt•1'• ..is•P.S�I I,y�+�<r,4 t�=r�,"�,. 34�f nY-ti t �� ,/:.� µ Y 1 / �. � q ,� � ,�y�,",:I�r�J��t`�3E� , t�.'. ' t 9:P• -Si� -1 t�,rr�j' 1•'�{r�.it j .,., ° 1 tt �'�'qf,�',++�,� e 7— - _ f � t. °[} 1�. �^, � `' +�rt�. „w•'1+�+..2�x�t, �� . --.^ il. ._.�1-�'Fi� u( t v �� � {h�� 4°� �t �� ® �} ��,,,)��t � Y.i S ._. � t�}.:it1!}.. 1 1 h .S� •i i t ,+r�� ,:iarp=� I �'7 � �' Q:� 1.��INIR� .��r :.�,��•} Y -,. ���f�#1rtti.`C f�l RR�'�..`jD�} ="a�'' t3�GJ 'Ir .. Pl1C�Lte^[1� a,�r. � � t:.� ,� ' ,}� { ��16fi�1' Q��� �^ K�.!+�r,11... J. • µ '�;l 1.1. .41k9;: i t� �'' i, r W'J[ ''".pu I t� �cc i1- J ��IJ�iq�"d ^ [�+• 3 P » f.,,'� - ;�. 1 t ''r�R'H`�''''1�VV�;"' �'-�6p' � R `�•fl -.r °if����7y�,I' P ti Ra•` ,� u i n Z L; NAM• f RUN "" City Of Rochester Traffic Operations 24 Civic Cener Dr NE Street 10 Avenue NW Site: 2007082834 Block 1110 Blk Direction &Cou a= upper b= lower 34 Weekly Volume Mon Tue Wed Tfiu Fri Sat Sun Weekday Week Interval 8/27/2007 8/28/2007 B/29/2007 8/30/2007 8/31/2007 9/1/2007 9/2/2007 Average Average Begin upper w lower e upper w lower a upper w lower e upper w lower e upper w 'lower e upper w lower e upper w lower e upper(w lower a upper(w lower(e 12:00 AM - - .1 2 0 4 - - - - - - 0.5 3.0 0.5 3.0 100 AM - - - - 0 •.2 0" 0 - - - - 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2:00 AM - - - - 0 0 0 0 - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3:00 AM U :0 r.6, D .. _ - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 4:00 AM - - - 0 0 0 1 - - - - - 0.0 0.5 0.0 '5:00 AM - - 0• 0 ..0 1 '• - - - - - 0.0 0.5 0.0 l 6:00 AM - - 1 6 2 6 - - - - 1.5 6.0 1.5 6.0 7:00 AM - 5 10 • 1 :1 2 '!$ ' - - - - - 2.7 5.3 2.7 5.3 8:00 AM B 11 5 13 3 2 - - - - 5.3 B.7 5.3 6.7 9;00 AM - - 2 11' 2 7 - - - - - - - 2.0 9.0 2.0 9.0 10:00 AM - 3 4 2 3 - - - • - - - - - 2.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 11:00 AM - 8 16 40 •47 - - = - - - 24.0 31.5 24.0 31.5 12:00 PM 7 12 37 74 - - - - 22.0 43.0 22.0 43.0 1:00 PM - 3 4 19 16 - - - - - 11.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 2:00 PM - 3 6 5 13 - - 4.0 9.5 4.0 9.5 3:00 PM - 4 8 1 13 - - - - - - 2.5 10.5 2.5 10.5 4:00 PM - 6 9 2 13 - - - - - - 4.0 11.0 4.0 11.0 5;00 PM - 0 10 17 9• _. - - - - 6.5 9.5 8.5 9.5 6:00 PM - 7 7 12 12 - - - - - - - 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 7:00 PM - - 0 7 20 22' - - - - - 10.0 14.5 10.0 14.5 8:00 PM - 4 7 6 6 - - - - - 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.5 9:00 PM - - 1 2 + 4.' _ _ _ _ - - 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 10:00 PM - - 0 4 1 5 - - - - - - 0.5 • 4.5 0.5 4.5 11:00 PM - 1 4- 0 4. - - - - - - 0.5 4.0 0.5 4.0 Totals - - 62 132 173 272 7 19 - - - - - 117.0 204.5 117.0 * 204.5 Combined - 194 445 26 - - - 321.5 321.5 Split(%) 32.0 68.0 38.9 61.1 26.9 73.1 - - - - 36.4 63.6' 36.4 AM Peak - 8:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 9:00 AM 6:00 AM - - - - 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume B 16 40 47 3 6 - - - - 24.0 31.5 •24.0 31.5 PM Peak - 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM - - - - - 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 7 12 37 74 - - - - - - 22.0 43.0 22.0 43.0 Report Date: 9/4/2007' 5:43 AM City Of Rochester Traffic Operations Street 10 Avenue NW 24 Civic Cener Dr NE Block 1014, Site: 2007082831 Direction &Cou : a= upper b= lower 31 ---•-•. . _ Weekly Volume Mon Tue Wed Thu Interval 8/27/2007 8/28/2007 8/29/2007 8/30/2007 8 31 2007 Fri Sat Sun Weekday Week Be In U er Ro lower Ro U er Ro Lower Ro Up er Ro Lower Ro U er Ro Lower Ro Up er Ro Lower Ro U er Ro 20LOower Ro U er Ro 100 Lower Ro Upper Ro 7 Ave rage 9ower Ro U p e Ro verage Ro 12:00 AM _ _ 1:00 AM _ _ 1 0 0 0 2:00 AM _ 0 �. 0 1 _ - - 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 3:00 AM _ _ 0 0 0 0 _ _ - - - 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 4:00 AM _ "0. •. 0• .0 :.�. .. _ - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5:00 AM _ _ - 0 0 0 p _ _ _ - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 6:00 AM _ _ - 0-. 0 ._0 1 . .,;.' _ - 0.0 0.0 0.0 7:00 AM _ - 1 3 2 6 _ -� 0.0 0.5 0.0 �. 8:00AM _ 2 6 1 2' 2 .-.__.2 •. - - 1.5 4.5 1.5 4.5 9:00 AM - - 2 11 _ _ 4 12 3' 2 _ _ - - - 1.7 3.3 1.5 3.3 10:00 AM _ 4 5 1 5 - _ _ - _ 4.3 6.7 4.3 6.7 11:00 AM 3 5 _ - 1.5 8.0 4.3 6.7 12:00 PM _ 19 11 26 10 - _ _ _ - 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 1:00 PM _ 30 36 _ _ _ - 18.5 11.5 18.5 11.5 2:00 PM _ 5 8 10 9 _ _ _ _ - - 19.5 23.5 19.5 23.5 3:00 PM 5 10 - _ - - 6.0 8.5 6.0 8.5 4:00 PM - - 103 �.... 8. - _ _ _ - - 5.0 8.5 5.0 8.5 5:00 PM _ _ 4 13 - _ _ _ _ - - 3.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 6:00 PM - 0 3 4 7 _ _ - 5.5 11.5 5.5 11.5 7:00 PM - 7 8 8 4 _ _ _ _ - - 2.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 8:00 PM _ 0 4 19 , - ,. ..,�4. _ - - 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 9:00 PM _ _ 1 Z 6 8 _ _. _ _ - 9.S 9.0 9.5 9.0 10:00 PM _ 0 5 - _ _ - 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 11:00 PM _ 1 1 5 - _ _ - - 0.5 3.5 0.5 3.5 0 .6 : .0. i _ _ _ - - 0.5 3.0 0.5 3.0 _._-Totals - _ I - 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 63 108 126 158 7 12 _ _ Combined _ 95.0 134.0 95.0 134'0 Split(%) 171 284• 19 36.8 63.2 44.4 55.6 36.8 63.2 - _ _ _ 229.0 229.0 AM Peak _ 41.5 58.5 41.5 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 8:00 AM 0:00 AM 6:00 AM _ Volume - 11 13 26 12 3 6 _ - _ 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM PM Peak - - 12:00 PM 12:00 P 18.5 11.5 18.5 11.5M 12:00 PM 12:00 PM _ Volume - 9 11 30 36 _ _ - - 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM - - _ 19.5 23.5 19.5 23.5 i Report Date: 9/4/200 5:32 AM - �v�wl=�ydsa�ti}NN��d e31sw�o-�_1ssHoo� • I i E0 130 r„► T'Z '00- �i �lYy- L.Y A Statement to the City Planning and Zoning Commission 10 October 2007 The residents of the East-side neighborhood have serious concerns regarding the proposed development's compatibility, density,jraffic, and parking. Our concerns are as follows: Point 1: General Compatibility, Section 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments, item 1 k, City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Excerpts p "The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings." It is stated.on page 5 item i that"the character of the surrounding neighborhood should not be affected by this proposed use The density (48.9 units/acre compared to 47.33 units/acre) is generally consistent with the multi-family residential dwelling located to the south of the site. • The coinparison+of the proposed development to Northgate Plaza is poor. There are about 154 residents of Northgate Plaza and the proposed development . would accommodate a maximum of 486 people (90% capacity of 438). • The impact of 486 people in such a small space is great. In terms of density, impact on residents, and traffic, the proposed development would have a great impact on our East-side neighborhood. • Northgate Plaza is NOT a multifamily dwelling. It is comprised of 151 one bedroom apartments for seniors and disabled individuals. • In terms of actual appearance, there is nothing in our neighborhood that resembles this proposed development The scale of this development, as proposed, quite simply would not be"compatible with its surroundings". • Maximum of 198 ppl may be living at Washington East(90% capacity is 178). • Maximum of 288 ppl may be living at Washington West(90% capacity is 260). Point 2: Residential Traffic Impact, Section 62.708, item I (same source) "When located in a residential area, the proposed development will NOT create additional traffic during the evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets" It is stated on page 5 from item "d"as "the use will create additional traffic during the evening and nighttime hours on the local residential streets • We are concerned about an increase of traffic and a decrease of safety due to the only access to the proposed Washington East being 10th Ave and 10`h St • This will create a marked increase in traffic, noise and vehicle lights. RECEIVED OCT 1 A.2007 R=-ES7ER-Oi MSTED C2I A A I AI I A!n^L-n A CTl A L-11T • Approximately 50 children live in the immediate East Washington school area and would be directly impacted by the increased traffic. Children are more likely to get hit by cars in areas with high traffic volume, a higher number of parked cars on the street Children under age 10 are particularly vulnerable to pedestrian injuries because they are exposed to traffic threats that exceed their cognitive, developmental, behavioral, physical and sensory abilities. • We feel that all traffic should be directed to 11h'Ave NW and there should be no access via 101h Ave NW& 10t'St NW. Point 3:Visitor parking • There is no mention of allotted visitor parking for the proposed development of this property. How many visitors/guests will be at the proposed development with the potential for 486 ppl occupying the 2 units? • No parking is allowed on 11`h Ave NW.The only option would be for visitors to park along 10'h St NW and 10h'Ave NW. This would compromise the safety of our neighborhood for reasons already stated in the.previous point • The current allotment of 12'spillover' parking places is inadequate for visitor parking given the estimated occupancy. • Currently the plan will need to accommodate 8 additional "spillover" parking " places. Where will these additional 8 spaces be found? • This high density housing proposal will greatly compromise the safety of our • neighborhood, the students of Washington Elementary School, and the residents of Northgate Plaza who walk in our neighborhood daily if there are no visitor parking spaces provided. On behalf of the East-side residents, I respectfully ask that this committee postpone approval of this proposed development until the concerns of the neighborhood residents can be fully addressed, and allow for review of a Final Plan. Lisa M. Peterson, 912 1& St NW, Rochester, MN VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES • • 0 m MEETING MINUTES FOR THE VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD e • INFORMATIONAL MEEETING YAGGY .,Project: Washington Village Multifamily Housing Development ��Lgy Date: September 24,2007 Time: 6:30 p.m. ASSOCIATES Location:Washington School Media Center Participants: See attached list E U 61 U E E fl S Distributed via email to: Brent Svenby,Rochester Planning and Zoning Joe Weis,Weis Development r ORCHITECTS Ron Kreinbring,Weis Builders Josh Johnson,Yaggy Colby Associates l Fl Fl U S C Fl P E Fl Fl C N I T E>T S Jason Woodhouse Ya ggy Colby Associates Yaggy Colby Associates File SURUE4Fl09 Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was.to .iptroduce the proposed project to the neighborhood and to answer questions and document concerns or issues that may need P E P 0 U 10 S further investigation. This informational meeting was not a requirement of the zoning ordinance, but rather was done on a voluntary basis to inform the neighbors of the proposed development. General Discussion: A presentation was given by Joe Weis, Josh Johnson, Jason Woodhouse and Dave Weisner on the proposed development. Presentation graphics flochester Office: included a vicinity map, proposed site plan and proposed building elevations..Handouts 717 Third Avenue 5E • of the proposed site plan and building elevations were made available to the attendees. A Rochester,MN 55904 summary of the items presented and discussed are summarized as follows: 507-288-6464 507-288-5058 Fax 1. Joe gave a background on Weis Builders and Weis Development and their history in Rochester, including developing affordable housing for the city. 2. Joe gave background information on the type of fielding he was proposing to use for a portion of the project, which is Section 42 funding through the H P I s/11 Paul O f f i r e, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. 651-681-9040 3. Josh explained the proposed layout of the site including access points, Mason Cify Office: building locations; etc. He indicated several review meetings were held with 641-424-63" city staff to review the proposed project and the proposed site plan is a result of the input from the city and the developer. Oedafield Office: 4. Neighbors raised a concern about the current traffic volume on 11t1i Avenue 262-646-6e.-5 and 10`h Street due to the location of John Marshall and St. Pius schools to the east. They conunented that traffic gets backed up on 10t" Street in the afternoon with people trying to get onto 11`i' Ave. The neighbors asked about a stoplight at this intersection. Josh explained in the meetings with the city, there was never any discussion about a stoplight at this intersection. Josh also explained this was part of the reason for distributing the access points for this development to three different locations in the site. Underground parking for the west building is accessed from the Northgate Plaza driveway. Surface and � underground parking for the east building is accessed from 10th Avenue. Surface parking for the west building is accessed from 11'h Avenue directly across from 10t7i Street. The surface parking for the west building would 4 �� probably be the least used of the three locations. C�•s-v.,, T.l ti •.ka" '3.sa'�';.i`"� �L .r '� -;`G y{, .t: �rz ate- � i. k t�w .4. "^t �.. •+.x 13 c, : .a.. �` i_ -�" K+ s v+- r � � ":� F .r& ..�. c�"T sue,.., a' S P..a ir.� � ur va. �::. Yfra_�s:.�wxR"�r';`Wc'�.....�..k-.sk,-.,�`rXr«-,GSa3s'1i.YSw.NXiti. ,3iS`.*.- .,'.n�'d..M,.1�...u�.�..,. .'`'^::.a,.3a''c`;-.s,..' m.,,.;`w..•+.,:�iS....MS,`ei"..'�.,F c..:,t H '�'., ..... a..ee.� r�r��ilr �M. :uT N w 5. Neighbors raised concerns about the volume of traffic at the driveway to Northgate Plaza. Josh explained the developer has an agreement with the Northgate Plaza owner to utilize this driveway for the underground parking access for the west building. Also, based on meetings with the city, this driveway would be widened to three lanes to allow for incoming traffic, outgoing northbound traffic and outgoing sorthbound traffic. This would help alleviate some of the congestion at this driveway. Internal stop signs would also be utilized to control traffic movement within the site. 6. Neighbors brought up questions/concerns about the rental rates, the type of people -----what-would-be-renting-these-apartments;the-inan dement aid security of tt pi operty' etc. Dave Weisner of Paramark explained they would be the managing company for the proposed development. He also went on to explain the procedures they use for background checks they use for potential tenants. The checks include: a criminal background check, financial background check, and a previous landlord check. Dave also explained the rental rates and the income qualifications for these units.Paramark provides an on-site building supervisor/maintenance person. They also have an on- site office, which is typically staffed during normal office hours. A copy of the proposed rental rate schedule is attached to these meeting minutes. 7. Concems/questions were raised about the number of people allowed per dwelling unit and how that is monitored controlled. Concern was expressed about one person renting a unit and then having 10 family members or friends living in the same unit. Dave explained that there.are regulations to the number of people per dwelling.units. • One bedroom units are allowed two people, two bedroom units are allowed four people and three bedroom units are allowed six people. He also explained.that units are monitored on a continuous basis, so that if occupancy of a unit exceeded what was allowed,these would eventually be found and resolved. 8. Concern was raised about the safety of kids in area schools and churches due to the affordable housing and the type of people that live in this development. Joe and Dave explained that this type of housing is geared towards a number of different people in different stages of life. One scenario is a single, working mother with two children. This development would provide an affordable, clean and safe place to live.Another target market is a young professional or Mayo resident that is just out of college and getting started in their career. Dave explained that the income brackets and the background checks are their way of ensuring thus remains a good, clean, safe place to live in and adjacent to. 9. Neighbors raised concerns about the impact this development may have on their home values. Joe replied that he has seen no indication from past projects that this type of development has had a negative impact on home values in the surrounding areas. 10. Josh indicated that they city is planning to upgrade 11`h Avenue between 7`h Street and 10`h Street within the next year. He also indicated that the city is considering widening 11`h Avenue from 10`' Street up to 14`h street to make this a four-lane road. The neighbors had concerns that this would only worsen the traffic/speeding problem on the street. 11. Josh indicated that they city is planning to upgrade 11`h Avenue between 71h Street and 10`h Street within the next year. He also indicated that the city is considering widening 11`h Avenue from 101h Street up to 14`h street to make this a four-lane road. The neighbors had concerns that this would only worsen the traffic/speeding problem on the street. 12. Concerns were raised about the existing bus stop at Northgate Plaza being located on the north side of the three lane driveway and Northgate residents having to cross lanes of traffic to access this. Josh explained that the bus stop currently sits on the north side of the existing driveway and that the developer has proposed moving the bus stop to the north and providing a pull-off lane for the bus. Josh reported that the ' +` city does not feel that a pull-off lane for the bus is necessary. Neighbors feel the bus stop should be relocated to the south side of the Northgate driveway. The developer and design tease will bring this idea to the city. 13. A neighbor representing Northgate Plaza would like to see a privacy fence placed along the property line separating the proposed development from Northgate Plaza. 14. Most of the neighbors were in agreement that they would like to see a stoplight placed at 10`h Street and 11d' Avenue to help with traffic control and help to slow down traffic on 11`}'Avenue. There were varying opinions as to whether or not all of the proposed development traffic should be routed to 1 Vh Ave or if some should be routed to loth Avenue as currently planned. 15. Josh ended the meeting thanking everyone for attending and summarizing the next steps which include the Planning Commission meeting on October 10th and the City Council meeting on November 51h. Josh asked neighbors to feel free to call him with • any questions they may have. Recorded by. YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES i X Jason Woodhouse,AIA JW/jh YCA#10078 • Washington Village Neighborhood Meeting Monday, September 24,2007 6:30 PM Washington School—Media Center SIGN IN SHEET NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER 2. 3. S 4. 5. 7. 9. 10. Jog 11. �P.�NrS /�rr`►�tbY 12. 13. qv r—, V4 t ES►a 14. 15. h.c� 16: 17. (� W 0 i f GJ Y1 Postbulletin.com: Planners rec; -rend housing project-Thu,Feb 28, 2r­g Page 1 of 3 Local News Planners recommend housing project 4 2/28/2008 8:35:40 AM (0) Comments Olne Sells Morte. By Jeffrey Pieters Post-Bulletin, Rochester MN Ask murneighbors about their REINMY.agel:t_ I An apartment complex proposal primarily for low- REIMAX of Rochester income workers is a step closer to Rochester City 4500 180, Ave NW Council approval. A The city's Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 F on Wednesday to recommend approval of developer Joe Weis Washington Village project. His proposal Is for the former Bachman's Nursery site, 910 11th Search Ave. N.W. w The project consists of two four-story apartment buildings with 118 apartments. Four-fifths of the n: apartments would be reserved for people earning about$12 an hour or less. ...... . .. _. . .._._. .._._. ... __ ___._...... .. ..__._��..._..._._.. 'There Is a need for work force housing," Weis said. 6 : During a two-hour public hearing, neighbors argued • that Weis' plan Is too big and would bring too many v new residents and too much traffic to an established neighborhood. "Joe needs to downsize," said Bill Engelking, who lives in an adjacent high-rise, Northgate apartments. r r "He's lapping over onto Northgate. He's lapping over r: ` , . ''� �`�S,75 ' cm onto the school property." K & 53 , Weis proposal, though meeting nearly every 3;x pertinent city code, does rely on neighboringr properties to work. It would share a south accessrg with Northgate.The Northgate entrance would be widened to three lanes and a bus shelter moved to PrnvinOtnfn P.N., Ads hv rnnnta upgrade the entrance for Washington Village. A north entrance to Weis' project relies on a 62-year- old right-of-way easement across the Washington Elementary School property. Weis proposes building a road over the easement, which connects a broken segment of 10th Street, on the boundary between his property and the school. Weis would also line that road with parking for the apartment buildings. Most of the site's parking, however, would be provided in an underground garage. • The Rochester school district objects to the road and . sought to have the right-of-way abandoned. The planning commission recommended denial of the ranupst. http://www.postbulletin.conVnewsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=330701 2/28/2008 Postbulletin.com: Planners rec• -rend housing project-Thu,Feb 28, 2�-11 Page 2 of 3 "This is our property," said school board Chairwoman Breanna Bly. Bly noted that over the years, the school board has supported city requests for several easements and)OBZ tax abatements. "All we ask back ... is 40 feet of property that belongs to us," Bly said. Weis' representatives described the proposal as typical of other apartment buildings built in similar locations. It would meet city requirements for parking and would have more than the required amount of landscaping, measured in terms of the percentage of the lot covered in green. Crime concerns ---------- - i Would the development also mean more crime, one neighbor asked? "Crime clusters do exist around lower-income living," said Pat Devney. "Does that mean It will happen around here?I don't know." Weis and his representatives bristled at the suggestion. "Nothing could be further from the truth," said Dave Wiesner, who oversees management of 6,500 apartments, including 2,500 units for low-income and • tax-subsidized tenants on behalf of Paramark Real Estate Services. "These are people who are in the community," Wiesner said. "Different life circumstances put people In situations where they need work force housing." For some, it's that they have a low-paying or entry- level job. Others have gone through divorce and need to find an affordable place to live, Wiesner said. Tenants at the Village on Third -- another Weis development:- include waitresses, maids and manufacturing workers, and those are the kinds of people who would live at Washington Village, Weis said. Village on Third has a waiting list of more than 80 names, he said. The Washington Village proposal is expected to be on the March 17 city council agenda. Builders would be ready to break ground within a month of council approval, Weis said. It would take about eight months to build. YOURC_OMN CEP':�j P..,.iEREo BY: Ro—_tE,9Er",I'1I I. m • Do you want a profile picture?Your own blog?To share your photos? Head over to RochesterMIN.com and start exploring everything your profile can do. You may need to re-login. http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=330701 2/28/2008 Postbulletin.com: Planners rec•.':.::--rend housing project-Thu,Feb 28, 21 Page 3 of 3 (0) Comments • Please Login or Register to leave a comment. See an inappropriate comment? Report it to our staff • httn://www.00stbulletin.com/newsmanaizer/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=330701 2/28/2008 Petition to Reject the Proposed Development of the old Bach a njfMpW%—y by Weis Development AR 1 2 2008 r} 11kion�sUr�Tln; ry`and We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of the East-side Washington School neighborhood. W ar `_ �b�agk� c�tin?d � proposed development of the old Bachman property for the following reasons: [1�TMENT ���•�'+�4 ���},yet R•oF(iz2�N y"r, P S��L;`tr xY 7� Ry �� =rls 4k.y+yi • Not currently within code. ra T nY: ' a uz isk�.3��S� A� 95, ,Lv Additional traffic to residential neighborhood, especially evenings and nights due do the proposed 10"'Ave NW exit. li �';?.b73Fi �� If!�.?7S i tr ` ' • sit to `�� A t Very high density as compared to surrounding neighborhood and area. ttr txlH Of� �€xlas�X� t �: u; Insufficient residential/visitor parking will cause overflow into surrounding East-side neighborhood. t t n,K,i,,q ,�t 'x .rt �i - p 9 ,1# 4•i r a�,r ti s t 4* F Hazard to neighborhood children and Washington students due to increased traffic volume and parking issues. Hazard to seniors due to increased traffic volume and parking Issues. M1zrI { � in V y kYr � ,f; j Provides free public land to Weis Development. Makes revocable permit become a de facto, permanent permit/variance. s+ f� t ;pg h. , I;"�Nti Will cause the school district to rewrite boundaries. *Detailed explanation available upon request. ml {{ A high density housing development will increase crime, decrease property values_. y e 33 37 Tiotred'for' ' We, the undersigned, urge our leaders to act now to reject this proposed development. ...L Cfiidss: d tl =i r r rated` `7 pFr! c {, x.. r �.., a.. 7-!,. aR1e •�a,;" •�ai7e1(�nattl.',,Riw '� '':.�..s..+�`y xi.; st e I;1 1.::, h..G k'}F At": a frl:�"+.r,,v"'"` «,:";r1�''f t. ,;?•�,• tm::�. q. ..k.x-.a; ,.•.: t 5..�7i, 1�' ':. i. .'1 t 3 t}}1ry5,u f 'A ^y,y� �;.7}�!�t� .l4�Ft - /� me' _� .a�F-' t L 4t .} i 4, 5)4Y]L yK fri -.:-i•a Y dddre �'4�1' „ e t � k K# 3` [ ! +�t`te • A v �''�: �t t u.� ,.�i. �;-Yr. ..s �v.:k �.'Qy y�. is �J, ,ii.✓� i t�� t� rtia,.. vvw I i v III ry I ' � cn ; • W z -10 %j LZ i—i t i'•' •f iL n� V ,1 JI f0 ..six • • __ RECEIVE I Petition to Reject the Proposed Develo men ` ' - p t of the old Bach m! n-.Prof by Weis Development �_�• . . .- Afts SU�Iy xpa We the undersigned, are concerned citizens of the East-side Washington School neighborhood. We are opposed to the Ubt 1`0 U r js x sr Jr K � <� proposed development of the old Bachman property for the following reasons: r�x� w � ��s r � �¥���`'��-��= w�� • Not currently within code. Y y" 4YT Kr's� • Additional traffic to residential neighborhood, especially evenings and nights due to the proposed 101h Ave NW exit. Very high density as compared to surrounding neighborhood and area. • Insufficient residential/visitor parking will cause overflow Into surrounding East side neighborhood. Hazard to neighborhood children and Washington students due to increased traffic volume and parking Issues. ffil •. Hazard to seniors due to Increased traffic volume and parking issues. OR { Provides free public land to Weis Development. Makes revocable permit become a de facto, permanent permit/variance. �Fm � ' r ` Yrsw �` 11 � Will cause the school district to rewrite boundaries. *Detailed explanation available upon request. a, bt�F�+tf t n•��� �i � TES: A high density housing development will Increase crime,decrease property values. I A4 �or{�pe�k�pr►edifi5r � We, the undersigned, urge our leaders to act now to reject this proposed development. ' Azifryrin�Q vIMRirnp.�:�r�'�i���"�gFr .''t,§;' .s. ,�. ,:+•a, .. .: c.. . .....w C�2���rtl Z' CM �°l0► 13 I G (O-rk Si--/V� Try n1�rdti! 'm ac i oc 1 - I ►aA�(� �jo�.�,l Q l� °I� , Al 0 vn�tch ,� .r AAA! 55-qQl - ��'� i'1 e�Jass i ' I rt r`,..�yhC;,>��r�id�a�r.�./j...ra..�..ma,yCs,n,,.S'�.r.k C/�I...�.,. ."i.�r�i�t..ar y...��Sz'�,[-�fi r._..;{j"�,4.t�.;..:y,Yr�.".�.7.�:rs�•ri�v.�.s..,fp.}�"uA�^fr..�P`•�,'. 's.:,,'x S.Ci h f,�x."�i ..;K-�k'•;5'�,.i>`u-.a Nam,LIMA It}';3,1�.91�d7` ,�-�i.7v t r.aOt`�'t}. rct l'�Gts`..';.- �x.wt3�:�- :'��?, �;S�i t-:S R'ii oW.,. ,r,:i:t•7'34'� r. i ,-414 yi5;.o ' L `� o �- F r r4r D- t. 13���rc�f►.�o�► 0iS G• 1Z�� b ,tTv� '{� .�U. orr'4L G ,� �e �r �r'"11 Ilrval AdCdk 0-2-1/ clj;Z— leC apt Avu 10 {\ � �%' : r, tle Gt� ,e el�• � �/ novic,eos p�t' 07 Jspe- v Nw. C,AtiZ Nt.J 968" o! ��' a -c- Jos I.//( aj /0 �lv Q f Nke /�A 4�0-- 104, IIY2 2 Aiyaf e e.�- -fiy-a- I() ` 9 a -'WIL AZ417r qf r o e i r . 1• (, _C! 11- A\lk, IJL3 • � • it Petition -to Reject the Proposed Development of the old Bach y Weis Development IIA;R1 qOO We the Undersi, gned, are concerned citizens of the East-side Washington School neighborhood. aro IRT WIMP' proposed development of the old Bachman property for the following reasons: �k, 4,, �� Not currently within code. Alm- "kr �yis 7 a Additional traffic to residential neighborhood, especially evenings and nights due to the proposed loth Ave NW exit. Very high density as compared to surrounding neighborhood and area. Insufficient residential/visitor parking will cause overflow into surrounding East-side neighborhood. atr Jft ,F��5,,AY, NMI Hazard to neighborhood children and Washington students due to Increased traffic volume and parking issues. J Hazard to seniors due to Increased traffic volume and parking Issues. r#x �N� ul z Provides free public land to Weis Development. nrf , Makes revocable permit become a de facto permanent-permit/variance. li iiN J rs r r► ��; � Will cause the school district to rewrite boundaries. *Detailed explanation available upon request. A high density housing development will Increase crime, decrease property values. �s `=•�-�t�" 77xE^.j;,�5 np�tj=,q x1} u2,� - g , g� t ptitiiined Hof We the undersi ned urge our leaders to act now to reject this proposed develmpcnent iTlf�i x r..�. x;a. �' 1y}�-3:.7 .;r.�.ry; �tC111 tt c �s.'1.}. ! .�S 3 � 91 e:rdYt,5 �' �q i � t.fi �,'. J„ }:-t•.f�, taM;'s rV a. .t. Y, .I q �? ,,:.7 M d .rvY ,k5'•,�' i .�r�.�,..,�.,-si,� r�rg ?° z, i 'h... ' ) - ..gy �.}a.,ash S;I,..r ,.,Y• €, s.s.,, ;pn red 44y kpp e y,,k't, � • £ .. .. . r_ ..t, ..�„ e ,.,as.,:c.s-,x.•a.`. .,,.,.�.. }i � ..yya +,t �;�"t -9� y. „��� �j h li._ A4N I sl We-71->,7 YA I ` , G 571 f'. 1 --- - - RECEIVED - -. -- Petition to Reject the Proposed Development of the old Bach�m6n-:_P:roperty r• • .r ram...•,r�Tta^•.— t by Weis Development — tire'`•.:. ;_UDN We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of the East-side Washington School neighborhood. We are opposed to the proposed development of the old Bachman property for the following reasons: {{�,�'`, �# �, Not currently within code. '� rt Additional traffic to residential neighborhood, especially evenings and nights due to the proposed 10 Ave NW exit. Very high density as compared to surrounding neighborhood and area. rY 9 tY p 9 9 Ia) a�A4 3 Insufficient residential/visitor parking will cause overflow Into surrounding East-side neighborhood. 1A • Hazard to neighborhood children and Washington students due to increased traffic volume and parking Issues. � 'fb � r az � `; • Hazard to seniors due to Increased traffic volume and parking Issues. `` �Y Provides free public land to Weis Development. r t Makes revocable permit become a de facto, permanent permit/variance. Will cause the school district to rewrite boundaries. *Detailed explanation available upon request. � VVI t � >r ; A high density housing development will increase crime decrease roe values. 9 tY 9 P property�Y 4 �` '" F• f xi`„' i; We, the undersigned, urge our leaders to act now to reject this proposed development. t� ,e r.'k_.. . --...• t' -.., :y-i..' �.r k..�, j_ fy"l:x ).« '�! :F �`i £ f jylt L ' ! �' ��. .. *r. .,,7. . •' ,_....,,.. r , a' -';`t �''t."' 4k, ! .., �"�" .�'� � �.: s s',�fir' '; nr"� 54�• 3r $' i6s r r �, iF :>4 �. ;;. 27ry P h rty r t• li+a�' 4, rint �, 511tia , r � +� �a 1c�c.i-rC'�s�+•�..-. 11/I^f 16-7 v b �— M 1 o LUcr i t cn 5_ o rc o -J--• LIJ h V ' Iz Tq 9 fro IT J ry� N .� y, � y IGX 43. \a ti v I �� � � �� � ��•�— `mil\ - ,1 r I n 3 � � I a < 7 fi X'k irl CD NO 0 a I t:,i:,,, J •fit � `- .--1 i ���/'�/ i A� 1 2 2008 p,.rin qq � e, !-:,t�:.. ,.,�r}, 11;;>+, .x.i� '� w..�.�a.�.=�, .�,!!• t.ai°�,", ,�. „,4!-ae�.d:'�1 - ;r. � ,�o!,�,q� �.. - .,� �, •.!�, ... F....t� ...- .� 1.�'3�i E i"!7� ��4LI�P.�;.: 4��G1-:.�:'a�,r3 n kJ a. <:��d�"E85E� � er• 1) ,�."o1i�F A��'' ,-t• .>� :F 3~i�'. fit:.-?s1�a., �5� -.,tea ,-�t n��. :k � _x,,.., �,,� ,�::.�e .�u..�{S� j'�'x✓. M: � sr `���•.!,•,��11.�`Y e: ,�X"t T� H � � .,.r' �. . 01 97L �G i rck- PC VOn N w I�lZB/U 7 o/G ZA— U, /W,\7 S 6 aw /Jo 9/67 vj qja .i�� EOM d ' ��sr w >wz a3 F-<<l q c„ Q LLI W LU o Lu UZ O[ �` way. s g: cl) 74 u•- r \ / 4L Vi sa L - 1 U • • RECEIVED rf,2'y�°-y �`R " Y" »�-� .-.a 'A� R�;:" s Jf 4-r.;§: E •'.^-7.,s';r-E',.: -:'t�;r '.e. w:: �'. t..._.j i 1 .�....4� s.s.,-f.+,�. '�, �`�x.,.��.-�.'.:�, •.h. �..�,. r�i .h, .d >.?''km�r`. k �r7 .St - �, rr,, i. � e.n�tur _��"z x x•!•�€� �... -.7,.;.z,,..„ .�� x-��� * t: i3* � iLA-Llr SS�rT � RM1.� �z� a-sC.r_�r.,v��i ,� r��`` `"? 1 i•.:. s r-:,. s'",r, ,; ;f. .. ?;.zr,a, {� �.t�, .T q. 9Yw.xeyfs `�3:4 v C`sb�tl�ile r a .,, �.q-a' ` aw� "y c sl �e toT t{ �S"w':F3�'k a s 7/ V g� yl� lI �—�.;�'�;I NG DEPART.._ - Below details complaints,concerns and objects to this project by East-side Washington School residents. This petition is against the development of the old Bachman property by Weis Development.All citations are excerpts from the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. 1. Not zoned"residential" Variance to existing code/zoning required, Currently not legal action(contrary to section 62.708,item d) 2. Traffic concerns Contrary to section 62.708 zoning ordinance by creating additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets by the addition of 486 potential residents of this proposed development. 3. Children safety,noise Contrary to section 62.708,item I.screening and buffering,privacy of residents,impact of traffic circulation and parking(insufficient),safety hazards to neighborhood and school children,potential safety hazard to. -- seniors(Northgate Plaza). 4. Density Contrary to section 62.708,item k.general compatibility contrary to general density will change character of surrounding neighborhood. S. Parking Contrary to section 62,708,item i.does not include adequate off-street parking as confirmed by Planning and Zoning by Weis Development. 6. Free Public Land to Weis Development Rochester Development Guide Booklet IV B Easement/vacation of public land.It is unethical to give private land to a for profit business with no payment or open bidding for said land. 7. De facto permit will become variance to code Rochester Development Guide Booklet 7 IV C Revocable Permit will be by nature and substance become a de facto permanent variance to code and permit since unwinding apartment egresses to city streets will not reasonably be done(e.g....refusing citizen access to their residence). . S. Crime Review of similarly situated properties show increases of crime compared to current neighborhood levels. The supporting data from Rochester Police Department is available upon request 9. Schools Can be expected to cause school boundaries to be redrawn and thereby creating disruption to students and families potentially splitting siblings up between different elementary schools(per conversation with School District Mr.Fogarty). 10. Lower Property Values Increased crime creates negative neighborhood perception and thus lowered property values,notwithstanding danger to neighborhood. This is supported by both anecdotally and by hard data. 11.Fails common sense test This project fails basic common sense. For example: • Tenant children will be bused to Elton Hills or farther.Washington Elementary is a choice school. • There is no nearby job/work base. • This project reduces personal dignity. • Lumping low income individuals and families into multi-family housing increases negative perceptio which have been driven by similar developments in larger urban settings(Chicago,New York)and their subsequent factual consequences. Funding would be better spent by providing opportunities low-income families to raise their children in a home rather than a dense housing proiect I • Current low income housing exists(vacancies within project parameters)and is available in c i y marketplace within the same"rental cost ranges as this project Furthermore, using existing housing i m would avoid reallocation of infrastructure resources,as these tenants would be absorbed throughout° i i Rochester's neighborhoods. a � N C 12.Fails Civic Responsiveness I o Failure to reject this project runs contrary to the democratic process placing a for profit business ahead of local co neighborhood objections. ; .L �. .41 q�� h ol co vo -------_. . �/ram a� - ld Z 1 H. t • / L ♦ I • ��i%mil • � l �r I � r• r �2jd _ 1,-4 N -�_ o Sl Z o C7 �-� vim✓ ' r• Petition to Reject the Proposed Development of the old Bachman Property. By Weis Development as,Shown on Plans We, the undersign, are concerned citizens ofNorthgate Plaza LYD. We have someTxC) o�- concerns with the proposed development of the old Bachman property for the follo �z reason: W $�Q OLU Providesfree public land to Weis Development along IOth St NW. CI -Shared driveway with Northgate Plaza LTD, Main driveway being to close toundergroundparking exit. L Moving Bus Stop, does not show where new bus stop will be located Fire Equipment getting to all areas of the buildings. • r:tc- F L 2 .�;...• , I !—to a uj LLJ X I • .ti 4 `r ZY� •.ifX 1 4rt' Jl ;M v O av`r�• y IC� • Section 1002 ROADWAY DESIGN 1002.1 Right-of-Way& Street Widths For classification of streets and resulting minimum widths refer to the ROCOG 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan Table 4-19 "Local Street Right-of-Way and Minimum Roadway Width Requirements"available at htto://www.co.oli=ed.mn.us. The City of Rochester Standard Detail Plate shows typical cross-section information. Private streets must conform to the same City of Rochester design standards as Public streets. On cul-de-sacs(without parking)the minimum radius to back of curb shall be 40.5 feet. 1002.2 Typical Cross-Section Cross-slope —desired 2% on driving lanes (maximum with variance request 3%), 2% to 5% on parking lanes,and 3%to 5%on boulevards. A 2' clear zone area shall be provided from the face of curb to the face of any obstruction. Sidewalk location—1.0' from property line for sidewalk widths of greater than or equal to 5 feet, 0.5' from property line for sidewalk widths less than 5 feet. • 1002.3 Curbing All streets shall be constructed with concrete curb and gutter on both sides of the street. Curb and gutter shall be design B-624 in all commercial/industrial streets, all multi-family residential (more than 2 families per dwelling unit),all streets centerline grade of 8% or steeper, all intersection radii, at drainage structures, and on residential streets that are platted as 'Controlled Access' (or similar restriction). Minimum longitudinal slope on curbing is 0.4%. Minimum longitudinal slope on curbing for streets leading to a cul-de-sac is 0.5%. The minimum longitudinal slope on curbing for the radial portion of a cul-de-sac is 1%. 4" drive over concrete curb and gutter will be permitted at one and two family residential areas where driveway locations have not been established and street grades are Iess than 8%. Pedestrian ramps shall be placed at all intersection comers. Where sidewalk abuts curb, the curb shall be modified to include a sill on the back on which the walk will rest. Expansion joints shall be placed at the ends of all curved sections, at the ends of the curved portions of street returns,at drainage structures and where abutting other concrete. The spacing of joints shall not exceed 300 feet. 1002.4 Vertical and Longitudinal Controls • Reference Roadway and Subdivision Design Standards in the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance 64.200. ENGINEERING STANDARDS PAGE 3 06/I S/07 Chapter 4 l Table 4-19-Local Street Right-of-Way and Minimum Roadway Width Requirements Conventiai Standards Traditional Standards Street Roadway Right of Roadway Right of Classification Subclass When to Use Width Way Width Way Loca'.Coll3^tcr Industrial Industrially Zoned area where 44 66 ADT>1000 vehicles per dayr Commercial . Commercially zoned area where 44 80 .. ADT>2500 per day Residential Streets designated as Residential Collector with parking on both 36 62 34 62 sides Streets designated as Residential 30 60 28 60 Collector with parking on one side Streets designated as Residential 26 56 24 54 Collector with no on-street parking Local Street Industrial Minor Street in Industrially zoned 34 60 ret 1 area with C&G drainage Minor Street in Industrially zoned 32 70 r r area with swale drainage = -� Commercial Minor Street in Commercially zoned area with C&G drainage 38 66 � and parallel parkin s Minor Street in Commercially r a - ' zoned area with C&G drainage 60 85 a� • and angle parkingµ '+Y S Minor Street in Commercially 36 80 s zoned area with swale drainacie Residential I Local Residential 2-way Street Urban with swale drainage 28 60RON tow Local Residential 2-way street with C&G and parking on both 32 60 30 60 sides Local Residential 2-way street with C&G and parking on one 28 56 26 56 sides Local Residential 2-way street with C&G and no on-street parking 24 52 20 48 Local Residential Limited Local:2- way traffic with C&G;no parking 22 50 20 46 and ADT<300 Local Residential 1-way street 20 44 20 44 with C&G and parkinq on one side Residential 2 lane parkway with 20 Each side 64 20 Each side 56 landscaped median&parkin Alley with C&G and no parking 20 20 18 18 s Residential Rural Local Residential Street with 20 60 L' swale drainage and ADT<300 Local Residential Street with 24 66 t= 5 9 • swale drainage and ADT>300 �� a ROCOG 2035r• • Washington Village Rochester, MN Bedrooms 1 2 3 Rent $ 495.00 $ 625.00 $ 795.00 Lowest Annual Household Income to Afford Rent $ 19,800.00 $25,000.00 $ 31,800.00 Lowest Hourly Wage for 1 Earner Household - Full Time $ 9.52 $ 12.02 $ 15.29 Lowest Hourly Wage for 2 Earner Household -Full Time 1 $ 6.01 $ 7.64 Maximum Annual Household Based on 60% of the Area Median Income Permitted Income 1 Person Household $31,200.00 2 Person Household $35,640.00 3 Person Household $40,140.00 • 4 Person Household $44,580.00 5.Person Household $48,120.00 6 Person Household $51,720.00 Max Hourly Wage for 1 Earner Household -Full Time 1 Person Household $15.00 2 Person Household $17.13 3 Person Household $19.30 4 Person Household $21.43 5 Person Household $23.13 6 Person Household $24.87 Max Hourly Wage for 2 Earner Household-Full Time 2 Person Household $8.57 3 Person Household $9.65 4 Person Household $10.72 5 Person Household $11.57 6 Person Household $12.43 Assumptions: Lowest annual income to afford rent is based on the assumption that renters can afford to pay 30% of their gross income towards rent not including utilities. • Maximum annual household income is determined by the number of people living in the apartment and is based on 60% of the area median income as published by Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) effective date 3/20/07 City of Rochester, MN - Message From rochestermn.gov Page 1 of 2 • Schneider, Eileen From: Delores Carlson [caris_dj@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 12:33 PM To: City Hall Subject: Message From www.rochestermn.gov Rr Home Citizens Business Visitors Departments Employment Contact Us Message from www.roch*estermn.gov Reply to this message to continue correspondence Submitted Information Name Delores Carlson Phone Number 507-289-6461 Email Address carls_dj@charter.net Address 1910 38th St NW Rochester MN 55901 Rochester City Council: All members. Re: Weis Washington Apt complex I am concerned about the Weis Washington apt complex. I do NOT think it should be allowed. The school district needs that green space. I believe if you would check that amount of green space around Washington school, it is not as much as what the state would like. The school green space is also used by John Marshall for varsity girls soft-ball games and also by the foot ball teams for practice etc. If 40 feet is lost where are those games and practices going to be held? Traffic is • a huge concern around the school, there are already plenty of traffic noise and fumes and you will increase traffic even more, which makes safety of the children a huge concern. 3/17/2008 City of Rochester, MN - Message From rochestermn.gov Page 2 of 2 • ALSO be aware that Washington is a CHOICE school ,NOT a neighborhood school, so there will have to be busing of the students from that apt complex if you allow it to be built to a different school in town, more traffic congeston. With apt. complexes there is increased problems of alchool, and drugs and noise. (I know as I live near some.) Will this make a safe enviroment for the students at Washington?How are you going to prevent people from the apt complex from using the green space and play ground at Washington school during the school days when the students should have priority for phy ed etc. With obesity being a big childhood problem do Question/Comment you want to decrease the running/play area at the school?Where are your priorities?to the builders or to the students?Please, Please vote NO to the apt complex, That small space is much better suited for small commercial area, NOT an apt. complex. I think the 'best' use of that space that used to be Bachman's would be to have another school built there the size of Washington,then k-2 could be in one bldg and • 3-5 could be in the other building, share the green playground space, parking lots etc and busing, That would expand the core knowledge program so the many more that want their kids there could get in--That in my opinion would be the 'best'use of that particular piece of property. Delores Carlson • 3/17/2008 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3-17-08 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Joe PREPARED BY: Weis—Weis Development Corp to be known as Washington Village. The applicant Brent Svenby, proposes to construct two apartment buildings on the former Bachman site. One Senior Planner apartment building would contain 67 units while the other would contain 51 units, both buildings would have underground parking as well as surface parking. Access to development would be off of 101h Ave NW, 11th Ave NW and from the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development. The property is located north of the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development, south of Washington School and along the east side of 11th Ave. NW. March 12, 2008 Depending on the action taken on the vacation petition filed by the school district to vacate the undeveloped right- of-way south of Washington School, the site plan for this proposal may need revisions, if the Council approves this request. A petition against the proposal has been received. The petition is attached. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On February 27, 2008 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposal. r. Josh Johnson, the applicant's representative, addressed the Commission and reviewed the project in detail nd the criteria for approval (see CPZC minutes). Mr. Johnson stated the applicant was in agreement with the staff-recommended conditions, with the exception if the 10-foot setback from the right-of-way for the parking. Mr. Weis also addressed the Commission. A number of property owners spoke out against the proposed development (see CPZC minutes). Issues/concerns included: • Safety of students/seniors • Crime • Increase in the amount of traffic • Does not fit the site • Right-of-way should be vacated • Right-of-way area used by the school • Parking • Density Mr. Barry moved to recommend approval of the revised site plan submitted February 27, 2008 for REVISED Type III, Phase II Restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Joe Weis —Weis Development Corp to be known as Washington Village with the staff-recommended findings and conditions as revised below. Mr. McGuine seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Wallace voting nay. According to the minutes, the motion was that the Commission recommends approval of the project 1has parking is revised to meet the third bullet under condition number 1. At this time a revised plan ot been received. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Page 2 RCA March 12, 2008 CONDITIONS: • 1. The site plan shall be revised: 0 Removing the Gul-de-saG and connecting the alley wit i I Aupn11A NIU end designing il'fn roadway as a street instead Gf an alley. a Providing a public sidewalk along the north side of the alley connecting 10th Avenue NW and 11 1hAvenue NW. • Parking off of the alley shall comply with Section 63.455 (H) of the LDM. • Identify the location for the relocated bus stop along 11'h Avenue NW. 2. Prior to the issuance of any development permits for the site, the applicant shall have an executed and recorded Access Agreement with the property to the south granting access through the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing property to serve the development. 3. Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to development, as well as, payment of any applicable Storm Water Management Area Charge for any increase in impervious surface. 4. The condition of Pedestrian Facilities along the frontages of the Property will be reviewed by Public Works staff and any needed repairs and/or panel replacement shall be completed concurrent with construction of this building project. 5. There is a reconstruction project proposed for the 11'h Ave NW frontage of this Property. The Owner should coordinate any utility services needed for its project with the City. The Owner will • be subject to a development charge/assessment, for its proportional share of the reconstruction costs, and execution of an Assessment/Contribution Agreement is required. 6. All existing water services to the site, not used, shall be disconnected at the main per the requirements of RPU —Water Division. 7. The applicant shall coordinate any utility services needed for the project with the City and dedicate the necessary public utility easements for the serves required for the buildings. 8. Execution of a City-Owner contract and dedication of all applicable public easements is required prior to construction of any public improvements to serve the project. 9. Plans and profile sheets shall be provided to the City detailing the construction of the roadway located within the right-of-way prior to final plan approval. 10.An easement will be needed over the sidewalk south of the parking lot and the proposed 10th Street to allow for public use. Waiver of Final Plan Review. The applicant has requested that the City Council waive the Final Plan Review phase for this application, in accordance with Section 62.712 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (see attached). Staff does not recommend in favor of waiving the Final Plan Review for this project. Page 3 RCA March 12, 2008 �ouncil Action Needed: 1. if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either approving, approving with conditions, or denying the Conditional Use Permit request based upon the criteria included in the staff report. 2. The applicant has requested that the City Council waive the Final Plan Review phase for this application. Staff does not recommend in favor of waiving the Final Plan Review for this project. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated February 20, 2008 2. Minutes of the February 27, 2008 CPZC Meeting 3. Petition Received r Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 pm on Monday, March 17, 2008 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. • Excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 62.712 Modifications: The Council may waive the need to satisfy certain approval criteria during the Type III review if it finds: 1) The applicant has demonstrated that the plan as submitted adequately compensates for failing to address the criterion in question. 2) The strict application of any provision would result in exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such property, provided the modification may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the purposes of this ordinance or the policies of the Land Use Plan. LOCATION MAPS/SITE PLANS • • 11 ft. Notificationof - -� 910 1 lth • - NW Conditional Use #R2007-028CUP 74.35.22.001432 Ward: . - - -- Neighborhood Assoc: None /26107 • Iff Err mgggm a.. '�.� fear ! � �� �y'• P� �,�-a�°�'tii� � RIM a 54 5} rL �i y ��iv r •! i �3 -���.s".f'Y;-fi�,.t -r��-,.. 'may.. '+• ��; c�w"�� ���" ■. - ���# "�� ' 'Gig t�'J`-"��_�'`�".T.�¢�s"x sr'"..r• a? "�a ``'�'��Y �`� � _.�f .O. ,�"fY�--y.5 'JN Yg".C^v��i�'� .��l4'—KSF= .5::,--.• - . .:.• I I II II ,I II - • - • �••. • - • - - .�. �• 2. I..t\Iwl)\L'O\p1l\awr\iw>•=or).s:.:),fye�:) .alII N r T`✓X� _' ..".! :2 f /lr 1� t "� f� k ��� I'�il, Yrfii- ', �` -i_��i ;.� ��� p,-: w7 ;. _ '..,yitc,.r7a '���]': •e' :5:._ �,�' �, ,. I'llµ` _ '. ,j � r � 'n'-'j 1r r. F:^ 6 ;y k•.)"� 4 � ��.• >p+h* I ()a. V / �! *'.y `��.�{ 1r rip ,��j� ' .x�{ � 'r` "". � ��J Ara xr _.� �`� •..* _ '.�'"'r„;��'�.'^��,`�ve.r• f I� �aI 12 AVB II! •,�e.fb N j. +, ors � ; 'j'i � l ✓F: r` _ "'P 1`°7 (� � �/` �. f�' �7 I r. ::. .s'�- ^�• ''��II .4 __'a Pr3,...m' ial�.n�' "� ' 7 Fir /^_ a y._. L: !� �,.�w� . � >,, ^ I � h �. r.1f eva xpR°' c � �?.� '''� „`k:. Wit- �r� *c•1' ..,r J-1 .�-•_..r�• �e � r.,�C x ,rn.r;»�T�. � 1��'�•� fR P;F -+' �tt' � ''R,,}.>,.zV y�r e d'; WJk .F. � r`mpne�•C".y�"'^au't'1C^.fr�( �3f1� ":�:=!'° (/TI 7W� e.�-s:��. i Fa �� in{ki.�i.r�`J+.bra+} A. yF�� ',f�'y ..J �� g qq!. �� ���!;��! �' r���.�� +i `:,dy , � i. ��a fe -� •P� I r � ;;H,. , , -'t_I 'A''l!. F- `E � a P2 ,a •'.i -1a` �� {S ,wi�' i _ . �� '� � a 1 !' �vu.. mow:.%.a� r . �, ?r 1 •: r � .� r5�,i Ye ��r ¢�I i` ���'y ��� _ r��: ��+•,-,T.�, y� � r� •^-� '�� 1� �u 1 .''�' � i;,�'' ' apt lop a r � l eHuti snip/ j AVS NMr f r .i ��,��•i �{ ...{,T � ` as �tn'C C _ �� Uzi, �t'� � �i �Y- '.. r � -�` -•tea AVE xr �� * m� �'� i' r / 'a d �'^� -a e WASHINGTON VILLAGE a� n 9� s8 e RE TRICTED DEVELOPMENT � r> je,:if--FlVED , ROCHESTER,MN aS ;� i 7 iiS)7 `)ICINITY MAPkg ' ROCnESTER-Cl�1STED I .. PI•:Nt•.rnl0 DEF?.RTME`!T ',. YAGGY i COLBY ��• ��� —_� ASSOCIATES icr21 *w7 r�i iN 1r,E ,��� �' "��.+b:t s�F�i.f- _ �'ky4��rc.;,5 '' .�.t� a•i" " -}. „�� ."�,��'yYp�S-. I I +C�r.'" tea,`xS.�Sx•-•+a�".s,¢L. "s' `H"'.a d 95zih!X`"J'1 m svy-�. '-" t.yr��+ s'� t��•9asr�-.. E��"Iy�T -•; �rL-�tr. •F M1 y � � � F �djr��J:S'c'L,�' � 'fj _I I im gg ,..Pts# pe ga In /Y Sl�lil _— 1 •. •. � �- I I t1Lmmll14 Cagaagaal Cq_aaaaa�aaaa�oaan�an a a a:. ICI i. ak I� Eli � I -• �° � - � ���� � ice' ' eaagaaagnaqaane' • 4geaarrcaaa�aaa � �gari0_bi»1fl��p_aOt�E�4gO0A>t�..tY_00�>li;$"•gtf I- sa. � 1 II- 4M TC h �p iP �2�s��� �� "�y ,�• Y+� Jr .'. 'illllllllllllll' U^ apart��:�yfl,'B3'!gifaslS'!gaa01�'•aatisf�� y tf.iaq.`0 � _ `S �Csaoaa a�02NM,la a�� aaS'a ^+'�'''' ' I lull ��.rua�.��.��.Itl�sis�li;�'IO•`��0f��gr-n-n! ■ H n-� •• 0On 5A W C) R6CHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100•Rochester, MN 55904-4744 • �i :r www.co.olmsted.mn.us/departments/planning COUNTY OF o�A0 W-4 TED..ZG-'U**S*1T'5 TO: City Planning &Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: February 20, 2008 RE: REVISED Type III, Phase If Restricted Development R2007-028GUP by Joe Weis—Weis Development Corp to be known as Washington Village. The applicant proposes to construct two apartment buildings on the former Bachman site. One apartment building would contain 67 units while the other would contain 51 units, both buildings would have underground parking as well as surface parking. Access to development would be off of 1 01h Ave NW, 11 th Ave NW and from the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development. The property is located north of the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development, south of Washington School and along the east side of 11th Ave. NW. The revised plan identifies a public alley being constructed in the undeveloped right-of-way of I oth Street NW. • The Planning Commission reviewed this item on October 5, 2007. The Commission had recommended approval of the proposing on a 6-2 vote. The item was continued/tabled a number of times when it was brought before the City Council. The reasoning for this was a concern of the potential issuing of a revocable permit that would allow parking in the unimproved right-of-way of 10�n Street NW. The applicant has revised his site plan enough that staff felt that it was necessary that the Planning Commission review the item again. The property owner to the north of the unimproved right-of-way has petitioned to vacate the unimproved right-of-way. Depending on the action taken on the vacation petition this proposal may need to be revised. Planning Department Review Applicant: Joe Weis- Weis Development Corp. 2227 7 1h Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates Attn: Josh Johnson 717 Third Ave., SE Rochester, MN 55904 Property Location: The site has an address of 910 1 1th Avenue NW and is the former location of Bachman's Nursery. • The site consists of approximately 2.41 acres and is located north of Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development and south of Washington School. BUILDING CODE 507/328-7111 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/328-7100 - HOUSING/HRA 507/328-7150 PLANNING/ZONING 507/328-7100 - WELUSEPTIC 507/328-7111 FAX 507/328-7958 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER #R2007-028CUP Washington Village Page 2 of 9 Zoning: The property iszoned B-4 (General Commercial) • on City of Rochester Zoning map. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: To the south and east of the site is the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development. The property is zoned PUD R-33 and consists of approximately 3.19 acres. The density of the development is 47.33 units/acre. To the north of the site is unimproved right-of-way platted as 10th Street NW. North of the right-of-way is Washington School. To the west across 7th Street NW is a single family residential dwelling and property zoned PUD B-71 currently used as a temple. Summary of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a new multi- family development on the former Bachman' Nursery site. The project will consist of two buildings, Washington West, which will include 67 residential units. The applicant has stated that these units will be marketed towards the workforce. The second building, Washington East, will include • 51 residential units of which 25 will be workforce housing and 26 units will be market rate. Both of the buildings will be 4 stories in height with underground parking. The will also be surface parking. Referral Agency Comments: Attached Attachments: Location Map Site Plan/Landscaping Plan Project Description Building Plans/Elevations Referral Comments Letters from Neighbors Minutes of the Voluntary Neighborhood Meeting Minutes of the October 10th CPZC meeting Minutes of the November 5th Council meeting EXPLANATION OF APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURE: The applicant is proposing to construct a new multi-family development on the former Bachman' Nursery site. The project will consist of two buildings, Washington West, which will include 67 units. The applicant has stated that these units will be marketed towards workforce housing. The second building, Washington East, will include 51 units of which 25 • #R.2007-028CUP Washington Village Page 3 of 9 will be workforce housing and 26 units will be market rate. Both of the buildings will be 4 stories in height with underground parking. Washington West (67 units) Washington East (51 units) 10 1-bedroom units • 7 1-bedroom units 37 2-bedroom units • 40 2-bedroom units • 20 3-bedroom units • 4 3-bedroom units • 56 stall parking garage__ _ _ ___ ___ ___ . • 39 stall parking garage j 0 Balconies on west side of building • Balcony on every unit • Overall height of 42'10" • 58'3" to roof peak • Flat roof • Pitched roof • 4 stories • 4 stories • Trash/recycle room in garage • Trash/recycle room in garage Both building exteriors will consist of brick, vinyl siding, cast in place concrete walls, vinyl sliding windows and doors, precast concrete sills and caps, prefinished aluminum guardrails on the balconies and insulated metal garage doors. The proposed building elevations are attached for your viewing. • The proposed FAR is 1.31 which is slightly higher than what would be allowed (1.28 FAR for Type I review) for a 4 story apartment building on land that is zoned R-4. Through the Incentive Development process the FAR could be as high as 2.42. If the property was in the R-3 zoning district the allowable FAR would be .91 through the incentive development process. For a comparison the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development has a FAR of .91, while the recently constructed Village on 3rd (500 block of Td Avenue SE) has a FAR of 1.56. Access to the site is proposed via 2 access locations. One access would be from the existing access to the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development. The applicant does have an access agreement with the property owner to use the existing driveway access off of 11th Ave. NW. The existing driveway access will need to be widen to three lanes which would allow one inbound and two outbound lanes. The widening of the access will require City Council approval and the existing bus stop shelter would need to be relocated. The relocation of the bus stop shelter will need to be worked out with the public works department. This access will be used to access the underground parking on the westerly most building. The other access is proposed to align with 10th Street NW on the west side of 11th Avenue NW. The applicant is proposing to construct a public alley on the unimproved right-of-way of 10th Street NW. The right-of-way for this segment of 10th Street NW was dedicated in 1946 on the plat of Cascade Subdivision and was never constructed. The alley is proposed to end as a cul-de-sac before reaching 10th Avenue NW. Additional right-of-way would need to be dedicated for those portions of the alley that are outside of the dedicated right-of-way (portions of the cul-de-sac bulb and a travel lane). There is a note identified on the site plan that there would be an emergency vehicle access only to 10th • Avenue NW. The Rochester Fire Department has commented that the alley should provide through access to 10th Avenue NW. Providing a through alley or public roadway, with pedestrian facilities, connecting 11 th Avenue NW and 10th Avenue NW would be more #R2007-028CUP Washington Village Page 4 of 9 desirable; having a through roadway would allow for connectivity between the development and the adjacent neighborhood. The public alley appears only to provide access to the proposed development and does not provide access to the property located to the north nor does it provide any public access other than only to those individuals living in the apartment buildings. It does seem like it functions as a private drive serving just the development. Independent School District #535 has filed a vacation petition to vacate the unimproved right-of-way platted as 10'h Street NW. Depending on the decision on the vacation petition the site plan for this development may need to be changed. Parking for the site involves both surface parking and underground parking. Based on the site plan there is a total of 183 parking spaces, of which 97 spaces are underground and 86 spaces are surface parking. Based on the type of units proposed the required number of on-site parking spaces is 181. Section 63.426 of the Land Development Manual requires spillover parking for residential developments. Based on the calculation of 0.1 spaces per unit, the proposed development is required to have 12 spillover parking spaces. Ten of the required parking spaces are shown along the north side of the alley. A number of years ago the zoning regulations for parking in residential zoning districts where amended to include additional standards for multi-family residential dwellings. Applying the parking regulations of Section 63.455 (H) to the proposal, the parking shown at 90 degrees off of the alley does not comply. The parking would need to be modified so that it is no closer than 10 feet to the side-street lot line. In addition the parking can not be placed closer than six feet to the multi-family dwelling. • Landscape space is proposed around the entire property totaling 43% of the site. The attached landscaping plan identifies where the landscaping will occur on the property. Since the property is zoned B-4 (General Commercial) and multi-family residential uses are not a use listed under permitted uses for the zoning district the applicant is proposing the development through the restricted development process. The proposal use reviewed using the zoning district regulations of both the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. The Restricted Development allows certain mixtures of land uses which are not allowed within a given zoning district on a permitted or conditional basis which can, if regulated, serve both the public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standard zoning regulations. The regulations of this article recognize and provide encouragement for innovation and experimentation in the development of land that would otherwise not be possible under the zoning district regulations established by this ordinance. This application requires a two-step review process consisting of a preliminary and final plan. The preliminary plan phase follows a Type III, Phase II procedure with hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council. The final plan stage is a Type III, Phase III procedure with a hearing before the city council. Section 60.532(6) of the LDM allows the City Council to waive subsequent review phases in a multi-phase review process if requested by the applicant, and upon making findings consistent with that Section of the Ordinance. The applicant has requested that the City Council waive the requirement for the Final Plan review for this project to expedite construction of the project. • #R2007-028CUP Washington Village Page 5 of 9 • CRITERIA & ANALYSIS: Sections 62.706 and 62.708 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance set forth the standards upon which a Restricted Development Preliminary Plan is to be evaluated. The Council shall approve a preliminary plan if it finds that the development has addressed and satisfied all of the applicable criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be incorporated into the final plan. Please see the attached excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual for the applicable criteria. The staff suggests the following findings for each of the 11 criteria on which the Preliminary Development Plan is to be evaluated: a) Capacity of Public Facilities: City sewer and water, and other utilities are available to serve the site. The conditions of the pedestrian facilities along the frontages of the property will be reviewed by Public Works staff and any needed repairs and/or panel replacement will need to be completed concurrent with the construction of the buildings. b) Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the property. c) Natural Features: There are no known unique natural features at the site. The • proposed development is the redevelopment of an existing site. d) Residential Traffic Report: Access to the site is by way of 11 th Avenue NW which is designated as a Major Urban Arterial on the Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) Thoroughfare Plan that provides access to the surrounding residential and commercial areas. The traffic projected to be generated from the development should not cause the traffic volumes to exceed capacities on local residential streets. The proposed residential use should not generate frequent truck traffic on the local residential street. The use will create additional traffic during the evening and nighttime hours on the local residential streets. e) Traffic Generation Impact: The anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause capacity of the adjacent street to be exceeded. f) Height Impacts: The proposed buildings heights would be compatible with the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing complex located to the south and should not have any negative affects on the open space for Washington School or the single family residential dwellings located to the east. g) Setbacks: The proposed buildings would be consistent with the setback requirements for multi-family housing in the R-4 zoning district and exceed the setback requirements from any permitted use in the underlying B-4 zoning district. h) Internal Site Design: The layout of the buildings indicate adequate building • separation and provide for a tot lot that is centrally located on the property between the two buildings. . #x2007-028CUP r Washington Village Page 6 of 9 h Screening and Buffering: The proposed buffering proposed appears adequate to • provide screening and buffering for the adjacent single family residential dwellings located to the east. i) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes 43% of landscape area which would be more than what would be required for a 4 story multi-family residential structure in the R-4 zoning district. The proposed parking does not comply with the parking standards for multi-family residential dwellings. j) General Compatibility: The proposed use of the site does significantly change the appearance of the property going from a commercial use with little landscape area to a residential development with 43% landscape area. The character of the surrounding neighborhood should not be affected by this proposed use. The density (48.9 units/acre compared to 47.33 units/acre) is generally consistent with the multi- family residential dwelling located to the south of the site. By not providing a public roadway connection to 10P Avenue NW and not designing the proposed public alley as through street, the proposed development appears to become separated from the existing neighborhood and does not allow connectivity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Depending on the action taken on Vacation Petition #R2008-004VAC the site layout for this development may need to be changed. If the vacation PP petition is approved, then the • P proposal should either be denied or the developer should be asked to redesign the layout of the site without using the area that was vacated. If the vacation petition is denied and the City supports the development of the site then staff would recommend that the following conditions be placed on the approval of this request: 1. The site plan shall be revised: • Removing the cul-de-sac and connecting the alley with 10th Avenue NW and designing the roadway as a street instead of an alley. •. Providing a public sidewalk along the north side of the alley connecting 101h Avenue NW and 111h Avenue NW. • Parking off of the alley shall comply with Section 63.455 (H) of the LDM. • Identify the location for the relocated bus stop along 11th Avenue NW. 2. Prior to the issuance of any development permits for the site, the applicant shall have an executed Access Agreement with the property to the south granting access through the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing property to serve the development. 3. Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to development, as well as, payment of any applicable Storm Water Management Area Charge for any increase in impervious surface. • #R2007-028CUP Washington Village Page 7 of 9 • 4. The condition of Pedestrian Facilities alongthe frontages of the g Property will be reviewed by Public Works staff and any needed repairs and/or panel replacement shall be completed concurrent with construction of this building project. 5. There is a reconstruction project proposed for the 11th Ave NW frontage of this Property. The Owner should coordinate any utility services needed for its project with the City. The Owner will be subject to a development charge/ assessment, for its proportional share of the reconstruction costs, and _ ___execution of an_Assessment/Contribution Agreement is required. 6. All existing water services to the site, not used, shall be disconnected at the main per the requirements of RPU —Water Division. 7. The applicant shall coordinate any utility services needed for the project with the City and dedicate the necessary public utility easements for the serves required for the buildings. 8. Execution of a City-Owner contract and dedication of all applicable public easements is required prior to construction of any public improvements to serve the project. • 9. Plans and profile sheets shall be provided to the City detailing the construction of the roadway located within the right-of-way prior to final plan approval. • #R2007-028CUP Washington Village Page 8 of 9 CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 62.706 Standards for Approval, Preliminary Development Plan: The Council shall approve a preliminary development plan if it finds that the development has addressed and satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.708(1), or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be incorporated into the final development plan, or a modification for unmet criteria has been granted as provided for in Paragraph 62.712. 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: 1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed development. b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified • and the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans. c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site. d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed development: 1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets; 2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets; 3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets; e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. • #R2007-028CUP Washington Village Page 9 of 9 • f Height Imp acts:pacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include: 1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year; 2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation. g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points. i) Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the . development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses. j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements. k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings. • • PROJECT DESCRIPTION • iff k h�yi 4: February l2, 2007 YAGGY J MT F COLBY t �Utr. Brent Svenby .2122'Campus Drive SE ASSOCIATES ` "'Rochester MN 55904 � = � E061OEEflS RE: Revised Site Plan for Restricted Development Application #R2007-028CUP for Washington Village O fl C H I T E C T S zs- -- ____—..—�Y.._.. Dear Mr. Svenby. x LHHOSCHPE RREHITECTS On Behalf of our Client, Mr. Joe Weis, Weis Development Corp., I am submitting the revised site plan for Washington Village Restricted Development Application. As a part of S U fl U E 4 O fl S this application we would like to request a waiver of the Final Plan considering the amount of information that has been submitted for this application both initially and with these PLO 0 O E O S revised plans. Because of the need for wider driveways to allow for 3 lanes of traffic movement, we would also like to request the council to allow for a driveway width of 36 feet which is 4 feet wider than the maximum allowed with out Council approval. The driveway width allows for one inbound lane at 14',and a right turn and left turn lane both at 11' each. Rochester Office: • The following information is being submitted to amend the Restricted Development 717 Third Avenue SE application for Washington Village previously submitted: Rochester,MN 55904 1. 10 Site Plans 507-288-6464 ' 2. 10 Landscape Plans 507-288-5058 Fax 3. Revised Narrative 4. Reduced set of Revised Plans The Architectural plans have not changed from the original submittal, if you would like M P I s/S t P au I Off i c e more copies of those please do not hesitate to ask. If there is anything else that you need 651-681-9040 please let me know. Mason City Office: We anticipate that this will be heard at the February 27th, 2008 Planning and Zoning 641-424-6344 Commission and the March 17th, 2008 City Council meeting. D e l a f i e I d Office: 262-646-6855 Sincerely, RECEIVED YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES FEB � � 2OO$ YSTED Jo ua J. Jo s n JJJ/jrh F?EVISED , • YCA#10078 cc: Joe Weis Ron Kreinbring r Dick Landwehr � ✓'Nt�r'�,�f'4 S tr d � a t -." r s any .� ! �a_ti ,�, A pa ti•5; CFIvED , r r FEB 1 2 2008 (Y w WASHINGTON VILLAGE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA ROCHESTER-OLMSTED T a �` �� P!ANNING DEPARTMENT YAGV k % F r` r_ RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CO L B Y September 12,2007 ASSOCIATES REVISED February 12, 2008 REVISE �Purt IUEEflS .' GENERAL DESCRIPTION fl fl C H I T E C T S The developer is proposing to construct a new multi-family development in the to �, LflflUSCflPE ITECTS1.location of the former Bachman s Nursery site on 11 Avenue NW, just north or 7 Street. The existing site is currently zoned B-4, Commercial. The proj ect will consist of S U fl U E 9 U fl S two buildings, Washington West, which will include 67 workforce units and Washing East with 51 units of which 25 will be workforce and 26 will be market rate. Both Plflfl0ERS buildings will be four stories in height with underground parking below. The development will replace the former Bachman's Nursery building and parking lot creating more green space overall and provide both workforce and market H o c h e s fe r'O f fi c e rate housing. The project will be similar in density and building height to the Northgate 717 Third Avenue S� Plaza Senior Housing development on the south side of the site. There will be two Rochester,,MN 55904 507 288 6464 phases to the project, Washington West and Washington East. 507 288 5058 Fax The developer has met with Planning and Public Works staff on different occasions to work through the issues of access, density, floor area ratio, parking, and utilities to better facilitate a good solution for the project. There was a neighborhood m p I s t Paul.Office ' 651-681-9040 meeting held on September 24, 2007. mason City Office: 641-424-6344 SITE PLAN INFORMATION Oelafield Office: Access: 262-646-6855 Access to the site will be in two locations: I. The existing access to the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing Development. The developer has an Access Agreement for use of this driveway. This access will only be used for the underground parking E portion of the Washington West building. Based on meetings with :- Public Works this entrance will be widened to three lanes — 1 inbound r E and 2 outbound, to better accommodate the potential for vehicle = x stacking. b } Page— I f fl 2. A new public alley will be built within the loth Street right-of-way on the north side of • the property. This public alley will allow for private parking on the south side, outside of the right-of-way, access to the parking on the east side of the site, and allow for parallel public parking within the right-of-way. Utilities: The City of Rochester is planning to reconstruct 11 th Avenue NW from 6th Street NW to at least loth Street NW and possibly up to 14th Street NW. With this reconstruction project the developer will coordinate sewer, water, and storm water services for the project. There will also be Sewer and water I connections made in 10`h Street NW on the east side of the project. Rochester Public Utilities, Electric Division and Qwest have asked for a 10 foot easement along the north property line, which will be no problem to accommodate. Density: The development proposal consists of a total of 118 units for an overall density of 48.9 units/acre. This density is consistent with the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing project on the south side of the site. • Floor Area Ratio: The proposed development has a floor area ratio of 1.31. This floor area ratio is comparable to that allowed in an R-4 zone for 4 to 6 floors of residential. Parking: Parking for the project will be handled through both surface and underground parking. There is a total of 183 stalls provided with 97 underground parking stalls and 86 surface parking stalls. Tenth Street NW will be built as 32 wide public alley with public parallel parking on the north side of the street within the right-of-way. There will be perpendicular parking on the south side of the street outside of the righ-of-way. The east side of the public alley will be constructed as a cul-de-sac. Access for the east parking will occur off of the cul-de-sac. Washington Village Design Features and Amenities: The developer is proposing some design features for this site that may be slightly greater than that of comparable zoning in the adjacent areas. It is the intent of the developer to maximize the uses on the site, while at the same time providing affordable housing, larger areas of recreation and green space, enough on-site parking, and take advantage of neighborhood resources. The following items are • amenities supporting not only the location but also all of the design features of the project: REVISED RECEIVED FEB 1 2 2008 Page-2 I ROCHESTER-CLY -D I P'.ANNiNG DEPART 1. Architectural design features which include: a) Balconies on all units in the Washington East building and a portion of the units • in Washington West. Balconies on Washington West will be located along llth Avenue,which will help bring some life to the street. b) Multiple Building Entrances — Entrances to the building will include access directly to 11'h Avenue for use of the bus stop, access to the underground parking areas, and access to the surface parking. c) Utilizing traditional residential exterior materials including brick, siding, shingles,,_ etc. d) Variation of materials and planes of the building to break down the scale of the building. e) Green design features such as energy efficient lighting, low-flow showerheads/faucets, building up and not out, energy efficient mechanical systems, etc. f) Building orientation to take advantage of sunlight. 2. Bus Stop Location: There is a current city bus stop located on the south side of the sight, which will • be utilized by the residents of the development. 3. Proximity to Neighborhood Facilities: a) The proposed development is with in a %Z mile of Washington Elementary School b) The proposed development is within '/2 mile of the Barlow Plaza Shopping Center and Northgate Plaza. 4. Playground Facilities: The proposed development will have it is own playground facility and is also adjacent to the Washington Elementary School and the green space areas that it provides. 5. Provision for Workforce Housing: Approximately seventy-five percent (75%) of the units will be allocated for workforce housing. RECEIVED REVISED FEB 12 2008 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED P'ANNiNG DEPART" Page -3 6. Access: • The development only proposes one new access point to 11 ch Avenue NW and takes advantage of an existing access on the south side of the project. A new public alley is being constructed in the 1Oth Street right-of-way ending in a cul-de-sac to eliminate traffic out to 1 Oth Avenue NW. This public alley provides both public parking and access to Washington Village. 7. Landscaping: The proposed development will be landscaped with new over-story_ and under---________ story trees and shrubs to better help screen views of traffic, act as buffers for the adjacent property owners, and also add vegetation to an existing non-green site. 8. Site Location: The overall location of the site is in close proximity to St. Mary's Hospital, Mayo Clinic Downtown, and easy access to the bike trails for pedestrian traffic. Detailed Site Capacity Calculations as proposed on the Site Plan: Lot Size: 105,360 S.F. or 2.41 acres • Floor Area Ratio: 1.31 (F.A.R. calculations do not include parking levels or utility areas) Floor Area Calculations: Washington West (67 Units): Floors 1-4: 78,451 S.F. Parking Level: 20,622 S.F. Washington East(51 Units): Floors 1-4: 60,303 S.F. Parking Level: 16,223 S.F. Total Floor Area: 175,599 S.F. Density: 118 Units—48.9 Units/Acre Setbacks: Washington West: h North: 27.2 FEET South: 28.8 FEET • [ �/���'� East: 30.0 FEET Building to Building West: 13.0 FEET at Entrance 15.0 FEET on Northern Portion Washington East: RECEIVED,� _ • North: 18.8 FEET �w South: 27.7 FEET LP 1' 4 3 East: 75.9 FEET _._,_.e..or West: 30.0 FEET Building to Building „CNN;N i`, _;., Page -4 Parking: 17— 1 Bedroom Units X 1.0 Space/Unit = 17 Stalls • 77—2 Bedroom Units X 1.5 Spaces/Unit = 116 Stalls 24—3 Bedroom Units X 2.0 Spaces/Unit = 48 Stalls Total Parking Required = 181 Stalls Total Parking Provided = 183 Stalls Landscape Space: 43% or 45,425 S.F. Recreation Space: 15% or 21,257 S.F. • REVISED ---------------- FEB 12 2008 I Page - 5 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED LPIANNiNG DEPARTMENT • I WASHINGTON WEST BUILDING PLANS • • nw.lal,Jm� — i��l 1 3 � ��1 ;3� � IIIIIIIIII I-11° .:I 0 ; "{ �I tl�!I � 'I IIIIIIIIII .: 11 I I tl ;';';';';';'i t t t�qc. ' ••' I 111 11 1 � n. 1 ' il:... lal it I IkI 3 ��}�/�]f{� ,'•1j1j1'',''W �YI � It'{iriit� 3ss� l IIIIIIIIII f l @ (�I�l 1��l' Ill l =1 III, I IIIIIIIIII ll ' ,�,�w �t�,11 II ,.r IIIIIIIII B!�:kl:.:.lfllll:�u' LY4'�7,1: -1 1!� llllitul� il II�IIps�3lpIIgIIlII1Wllllll ill'p1`If�lli I I .'114411�i �I�'IRSli 11 'I. 1;1;1;1;1;1;1 �,•�I �I{ ;I k � 1'lau"i3�-,1111�a�IIII�:�1111:=:�IIIII. 111 11 1 7 :,.all III=f ! 11��1411.1PH.II BI�r�tlr1..... N!IIAllAIAII 1,1,1,1,1,1,1 11l li f 4 d .31 �M.- 111144' q ' y� rn'�gI l;l ' y{�.� III III III " '� ■I° :o °o II illltlll Illltlll Illltlll 2 III►IJII Illlii911 IIIIIIIIII :','__ I 41 woo 11QMyl4'��4}pllr lul�;l�II�i�CuII�l11�iV15��� �I 11 ■ III 1 •ill��ll • � ..... ;!�{I1ktIRf6 L'luJtill':IPJ�I�Ilr[41f191'1IS31dX+��l�17 i711f11111%�SI. �� 4'�`�'klX!;`�IIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII 1;1; r6 ,! !I inunm uunnn Imnnu ��ail �� �..I.� F-��'•�-' C� !llll fl'�l '! E!I,''IILIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII! IIIg,�l�I IIP91!I 1111�.911 IIIIIIIIII ,1 j t ❑ �i II"��`II�I��I�tlll Illlltlll Illltlll ',';'I"� �n;,�!I ; ;al,lal3r I � , III ;lll1�11. ��11111�II��=IIIIIC I: 1 1 �•.. .I vii 1, ...Ili] 11 f Illrtdl�°Jl.v.111i"fit+'klflbllpl[lll'll��i'1�1 I'TCFSaI- ,;1; ,��,>�r� IIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII ;;;;;;, , rs�� 1 11 _ !;'; �1T41� ,IIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIII Ill�ltl�tlll ;;;;; ��� � .. I I it l.11l; 1 � �1 ` ti 'I Illlltll ll ll{ ° il 1 t 111 C:C11&9L Il luim unnnm nnnnnn II;1;1;If31 k I jj 1;1;1;1 IIYf&4461'!IAy�Ih'��^Jyp'ppuCIW NJ9�11IN1�3�1i117114te`,� , HER I II • 1'1'1'1 I•• d41IG�l.iu YI:EI 1,1 I 1 M. , � llRONa:!Illllll��lkalllllllll � �II•������t I �� ' "I IIIIIIIIII ��I�i��� =I01 W==1':� �����e� ,:F ;Illl;l i��Il l'i III �����,'I` .I ❑ �;�;�;'i�Itl����r'��!.�I�I,k�"`������I Illlltlll s. 1,1,1,1, I II IIIIIIIIII ;;;B;;I; II II 1'1""'�'. �� I�I'I� � 'Y..�'I IIII❑tlll ,III ..:� I . 11111 tt I 14 • � 11111 11 li t lll;l;l;l;l rh= aLipl ml�l • `� �l�l�L;lplp� �I�IIa�����fl 'i " i lorlllu 11_ N ate! YAGGY - •••• n= -. _••• - E=.. -EEEE ' ...ASSOCIATES'. milli! - EEEE EEC _' 'E_E —• _ _ — _ — --- n—n. E..� � E;..��'iJ�, �•a:Ea--.! UN _ =�.::! —�:E _ ':•_- a _�p = m -::! -- ■T- _. -, .E -►_� =n=n n-n—E E n_EEEE - : EE�� T 0 .�E.7� cam; '-• ° -��-_. - ...�';�='I���° EE _� E 3��a a:�: �: -0��� fay e �=EEEE H. '°o'�=•_•_ - • Hi E = ..E +e.3 : •�"_.-._'e�'nu • .. .... - --. E: ... ,; — �E:: EEE�BRES IE Ee .`E E ------, ------, 'I T TF= _.= 4 5 6 7 8 9 10' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LB 19 I _-u� °ems' � .� '�`��rt...,�C�• 1! I i fi20 21 zz 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 B 24 W 41 u 25 Z J 1 Z6 } w <F `! Q-p 40 27 O Z13 LU O J u3 Z 39 y 28 > L, 38 29 O N .',••' w 37 !I V o Z Z t-c x 36 af Q 35 30 Q a 34 31 PARKING LEVEL: 33 32 Rr.CEIVED • FOOTPRINT- 20,622 SF PARKING- 56 STALLS r.o.a I075 SEP 1 Z 2007 a W/12/07 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED7 P'4NNING DEPARTMENT RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - 8 ' o N . , . A1 .0 \ , � 2 ! \ \ § � \\\\\\ > . j�;;§ ) � )\)]) �. / ®a,Z 0 }\jkk $ \ (�f7\\g �� ) ` . $ G�2a ;.�� , e )§§§% }\\\ \ . � | � % § . $ Z $ ' \ . � $ $ / \ . . ..._ -- & � � \ r _ \ m \ -c am { / \ . i 1 .1 11 WASHINGTON VILLAGE WEST )/■ j > ' | RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT 7 ROc ESTER,MINNEow MAIN LF' 'OORe�N ' ! ' �` m§ a% �dj I s :a 0-W :Z; W Zen 0000n� '� �000 vn oAp aZ I z I I I Z m z 1 1 1 ; p ti m li ' 1 m o r- _ C cccc cccc zzzz zzzz Wr c O O � II - O W~ �oaon � r � m cccc � m zzzz er D m r p Dm 7Q m D m no m -0 m � Z V I i WAS HINGTON VILLAGE -WEST RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT € F • , s ROCHESTER,MINNESOTA ?E;g ? N s m SECOND-THIRD-AN- 'JRTH-LEVEL FLOOR PLAN t ;;,,.•:..: _ f • i WASHINGTON EAST BUILDING PLANS • • YAGGY COLBY o- ,.lo = _ _ ASSOCIATES — --IUIIImm mom. l=O=-llilllllllllll - �_ =1111111111111 LIhI=� =IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'I -1111111111!IIIIIIIIIIII - — — lam �IIII!II!!Il!Illulll -hull II !I m_m=�,Or�..__�_ _�:,__-� �0�01-�—�E=='JMmu�fll Kai --IIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIII- — --IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII- =IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-❑ �= n.�. Em 11 "Ilia ing a 11"M EARN q � � _Ill.11liiilll IIIIII lulllllllllll IIIIu _ - ED' II!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� �� � _.:! .00 �u�llill�lillllE ��lllllllll�llllll���. �... _ == == =%_o=���==o-o-gin_-=E.._=i_li • . IIIIIIIIIIII=••• =1111111111illlllllllll=•:_ ==ulllllllllllllllllll'I -IIIIICIIII! .,,_ � ..� luul.«--- ullllluluol!III(� •-•-� _�lu!!IlU!I!I►Illill III!��i!�1:� - ���..; 1111111111- ��Ilulllllllllllllill��-� Illllllllllllluull��'° IIII IIIIh't �lluuuu Iiu�lumu�Ilulu_ �- luuulluuul!ull iu 111111'. -�-_- __-- __ i , -C l• _ ____ SUBMITTAL I 1 1 1 1 • T� ..'❑,.'3- a 17 COLBY- I - _IIIII I I IIIIIII!— —_IIII IIIIII117— '0= ASSOCIATES. Nron=1 i•■-- IIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII! IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII -° 1- I: - MOM— Illlllil!Illllllllpl w �-,_ OHI ; OW oil 11—H. pro IIIIII�IIIII _E� CI:� Him O •�• .�:� :�_ -IIIIIIII IIIIIIIilllll� _ -IIIIIIII IIIIII 1111= — II IIIIIIII =❑-0=1 Ilt� _ _ E�e�_�•_ _� = II IIIIII ` �—rn.— �_ _ III= IIIIIII IIIIIIII _ _ IIIIh - ti , IIIIIII — - _ =••,-111111111 IIIIIIVV�_ =— IIII �1i11—= 9�ITIII�IllIII�IlIt1 -m—R::== =���'1� ��':� _�€ ^�_ IIllIIILIV1Vllll _ IIIiI� = II IlII I�IVIIIJUI —. _ '- 1�: EE1`: _�.',:�-gam�rl � n■ � =1:: n�� = � �� 1. T�� Gi= �� ■ W. VVIIII I - �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � 3�� � Il lllllll�ill lll- En— •:�B nil� i�t;c�ii3=�� = - e VI.IIIVI.IVIVI... IIIIII III IIIIIIIIIII �>♦��' �E.-� -._ - Illhg - Illllilll�llll�ll�l EiE� ,€I�0� �- �- IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII� - __ __ ,��___:��.�_ __ ___ _ --- _---KnpV�VIIIV�V�V�- 3 �IVIIIIIIIViVVVI �I•C I� — I I - - - _ r_s=_��- - - - - - _ - z---=-- - -- ---- '�. �_ ___ -_ -- ---- ---= --=---- --- _ n ti OVERALL UNIT MIX SUMMARY: 9, , UNITS: MAIN LEVEL 2ND LEVEL: 3RD LEVEL: 4TH LEVEL: TOTALS: 1 BEDROOM 1 UNITS 2 UNITS 2 UNITS 2 UNITS 7 UNITS 2BEDROOM 1D UNITS 10 UNITS 10 UNITS 10 UNITS 40 UNITS 3 BEDROOM 1 UNITS 1 V TOTAL• 12 UNITS 13 UNIT$ 13 UNI7513 UNITS 51 UNI75 . u»mama . rmae u w.st,�; r—� or u.ros•M. rnuciiursrhvw.nrro snr ucf�seo MECHANIGU ELECTRICAL 4 i Y • ---1 I I f Z z PARKING GARAGE LLI�Q g b a 39 STALLS U°—~ CY I J0o O I -- >w Z O `. Fri 11C4 PELIV 0 N 11J D.1 •' MECH. _ TRASH/ » x n » as x x x m x » » n » 1° f1 U v U U UNIT —]RECYCL — Z RODM�_- Z O STAIR =N Q ELEV.EQUIP) a MECHANIUL STAIR e Win � C _�_ !1 PARKING LEVEL FLOORPUN � v • c RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT s SUBMITTAL PACKAGE 1 1 9112107 A 1 ..0 YAGGY . : '6Me3Ls`i(s�: _ COMM. .. W ROOM r4 n9-17-0) -BDRM -BDRM -BDRM -BDRM _� All 2-BDRM UNITA UNITA q UNITA UNITA D M �?q UNIT B-2 ® 1-- 7� - g D CC 3D 1` --- ® C/) —1 —r — i Z— 1 STOR. �l ®® W Z ��� z OFFICE C g L Z W --------- C7 CL I - i TOILET _¢_I O w LOBBY 1 _ i w Z O 2-BDRM f = �_� !� i { r L ? O ] f L--------' ELEV. DRM Z� UNIT B-3 _ ® _ IT B-1 - - _ -BDR -BDRM R(03 w 1-BDRM -_-_- 0 o w UNITA UNIT A T NIT D-1 (3 1-Lu_ -- STAIR ®® V U p _Z _ .- Z E-c Q — VEST. Q> L e STAIR a "� I �u1N LrEVF OOR r it u r 1016t p 9-12-07 5 IL( JCI F� 4 RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT s SUBMITTAL PACKAGE 9„z,o' A 1 .1 �ww�N�o��N'ip�.wOMliu�Kvi1�xn0 u�IowM LL�4 ilaot My iwew '��w w��grwmuryr�..m�ti i CN CN z W z W i I I A z � D3 D � c1a C d z Z i D � D I li Zo 70 -� I' I -Z co ice � . D � D a� z 3 I z0 IV j � I I 1 � i N i I +� I m t I m z oa Vna o 0�® I 3 � c II( a ; P WASHINGTON VILLAGE— EAST I s D RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT _ —� ROCHESTER,MINNESOTA �s iQaa "a�og _ 2ND 3RD AND `- ' '_EVEL FLOOR PLAN �-�•_� " ' l • REFERRAL, COMMENTS • • ROCHESTER Minnesota 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: 2/14/08 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the REVISED application for Restricted Development Plan R2007 028CUP for the proposed Washington Village development on the former Bachman's site I Ph Ave NW. The following are Public Works comments on this request from 9/28/07. New comments based on the revised plan are indicated in BOLD,while prior comments that are no longer applicable are indicated with STRIKETHROUG . 1. Grading&Drainage Plan approval is required prior to development, as well as, payment of any applicable Storm Water Management Area Charge for any increase in impervious surface. • e L f A b Permit' d to flew the d to �i. Apprf3r al� �3f8E�1�1Az"r-vz-'a--rc�c-`T'vcavr^c—r erirririsicgiiir'cQ cv-ar:vvrrrrc�rv^pv�ev�i}'r"crcc rod "d 1 ds within the ed ROM.'of 1 0" eta !, pw .aig uaa auizcr ^ 2. Dedication of additional public right-of-way will be required to accommodate the proposed public improvements lying beyond the existing platted ROW for 10"'St NW. 3. There is a reconstruction project proposed for the 11`b Ave NW frontage of this Property. The Owner should coordinate any utility services needed for its project with the City. The Owner will be subject to a development charge/assessment,for its proportional share of the reconstruction costs,and execution of an Assessment/Contribution Agreement is required. 4. The condition of Pedestrian Facilities along the frontages of the Property will be reviewed by Public Works staff and any needed repairs and/or panel replacement shall be completed concurrent with construction of this building project. 5. Execution of a City-Owner Contract and dedication of the applicable public easement(s)is required for the extension of any public watermain and hydrants to serve this project. • C:\DOCUME-1\mbaker\LOCALS-1\Temp\BCL Technologies\NitroPDF5\@BCL@840C8ElA\@BCL@84OC8EIA.doc • ROCHESTER Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Rochester, MN 55904 201 4th Street SE reef SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FROM: Mark E. Baker FAX—507-281-6216 I 6. As proposed,there are no pedestrian facilities provided to accommodate pedestrians once they have parked their vehicles in the public parking stalls on the north side of 10`h St NW. This would require persons using those parking stalls to walk in the public street. The Site Plan should be revised to include a sidewalk connection from 111h Ave NW to 10`h Ave NW along the north side of 101h St NW. 7. The Site Plan should identify the proposed new location for the relocated Bus Stop along 111h Ave NW. • 8. Execution of a City-Owner Contract,and dedication of all applicable public easements is required prior to construction of any public improvements to serve this project. Development charges related to this project include the following: • Sewer Availability Charge(SAC)@$2139.39 per acre • Water Availability Charge(WAC)@$2139.39 per acre • Contribution for Reconstruction of 11`h Ave NW, including Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction,to be specified in an Assessment/Contribution Agreement. • Storm Water Management Charge—TBD • Plant Investment Fee—To be calculated and collected through the Building Permit review process. • C:\D000ME-1\mbaker\LOCALS-1\Temp\BCL Technologies\NitroPDF5\@BCL@840CBE1A\@BCL@840C8E1A.doc V.- pledge, xte deliver • September 27, 2007 Rochester-Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Joe Weis— Weis Development Corp to be known as Washington Village. Dear Ms. Garness: Our review of the referenced Restricted Development Request is complete and our comments follow: 1. All existing water services to this site must be disconnected at the main per our requirements. 2. The Fire Prevention Bureau will need to comment on the location of the existing fire hydrants as they relate to protection of these buildings. If they require additional on-site fire hydrant(s) the following items need to be addressed: a. Final water main construction plans with profiles would need to be prepared by a civil • engineer, approved by us and conform to standard City of Rochester requirements. b. Water mains connecting to and including any fire hydrant are considered public and need to be within a 20' minimum public utility easement. c. The owner would be required to enter into a City Owner Contract with the City of Rochester for the installation of the public water main. Contact the Land Development Manager(507-328-2410) at the Public Works Department for details. Please contact-us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, �tll Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau • Joe Weis, Weis Development Corp Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities,4000 East River Road NE,Rochester,Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 The hand to reach for... oAVmA.KAPBR Fire Chief DATE: February 21.2OU8 TO: Jennifer Gorneao. Planning ------�-- -FRO[N�R�Vance-Swiohor,-FnaK8omha|-----'---------- SUBJ: Revised Type 111, Phase 11 Restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Joe Weis—Weis Development Corp baba known oo Washington Village. The applicant proposes to construct two apartment buildings on the former Bachman site. One apartment building would contain 67 units while the other would contain 51 units, both buildings would have underground parking ao well on surface parking. 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 bein place prior hu commencing building construction. o) The minimum fire flow for this commercial development area shall be no less than 2,500 gpm at 2Opoi b) One onsite fire hydrant shall be provided on the North side of the proposed project along the d 1OmS�aetNVVROVV. Public proposed � � u c Alley. D. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire codu. RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall bo serviceable prior to and during building construction. a) The proposed 1Dm Street NW R.O.W. Public Alley shall provide through ocoeao to 10m Ave NW on the Northeast corner uf the proposed project. 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 bea minimum 4^ high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box a1 the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended. n: Donn Richandoon—RPU VVo1er(e-mail only) Mark Baker—Rochester Public Works (e'mai| only) Yoggy Colby Associates (a'mai| only) ` Washington Village Development loth Avenue NW Traffic Count Summary Date`: December 4, 2007 By: Gary Shannon In August of this year, traffic volumes counts were taken on 10th Avenue NW, north of the proposed development. The neighborhood had some concern that the traffic volume data collected in August did not reflect the conditions when school was in session and a request was made to collect the traffic volumes at the same locations during a typical school day. Following is a comparison of the data collected during these two time periods. _ This location has two parallel streets that are each approximately 33'wide, separated by a grass median area and each is operating with two directions of travel. For the following, the"upper" road is the one farthest west(fronting the school property)and the"lower' road is the one farthest east (fronting the residential area). Traffic Volume Data Collected in Au ust of 2007 Count Location Upper Section(west road) Lower Section(east road) 24 Hour Ave.ADT 24 Hour Ave. ADT Between I Ph and 12'b St NW (1110) 117 205 Between 10b and 11`h St NW (1014) 95 134 Traffic Volume Data Collected in November of 2007 • Count Location Upper Section(west road) Lower Section(east road) 24 Hour Ave.ADT 24 Hour Ave.ADT Between 11th and 12th St NW (1110) 73 161 Between 10th and 11th St NW (1014) 46 104 In reviewing the data, there appears to have been several events at the school which resulted in periods of increased traffic during the August study (thought to be ball games). During the November study, the periods of increased activity corresponds with the start and release of school. The charts below were prepared to aid in understanding the daily traffic activity during both study periods. They present the hourly traffic volumes collected for the area between 11th and 12th St NW(the higher traffic volume location for the study). Note that the traffic volumes are generally below 20 vehicles per hour for the majority of the day for both count periods. 10th Ave NW August Traffic Count 10th Ave NW November Traffic Count 50 35 0 4p 0 30 ' 25 a 30 Upper a 20 Upper d 20 . . .Lower ;( 15 . . . .Lower 10 r 10 P , • , IVm 5 0 0 °° °° o° °° O° o° �P°°P°°P 61 spQ °°Q °°Q ri) • Time of Day Time of Day • I INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM NEIGHBORS • • The Rochester Public Schools �$ a Independent School District#535 • 615 711,St. SW• Rochester,Minnesota 55902-2052 Business Services• Telephone (507)328-4210•FAX (507) 328-4204 February 21,2008 Theresa Fogarty,Senior Planner Brent Svenby,Senior Planner Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE,Suite 100 Rochester,MN 55904-474442 Re: Vacation Petition R2008-004VAC by Rochester School District#535,and Re: Revised Type III,Phase II Restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Weis Development Corp This letter is being submitted as written comment for both of the issues listed above which are to be addressed at the City Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting/hearing on February 27,2008. The School District is looking at this issue from the aspect of safety for the students who attend Washington Elementary School. The School District received a letter dated December 6,2007 from Joseph Weis regarding the use of the public right-of-way.In that letter it was stated that,"While reviewing our project,the City staff informed us this street would never be built."It is on that basis that the School District has submitted the vacation petition. When looking at current Minnesota guidelines for new elementary school construction,a school with the • student enrollment the size of Washington Elementary School would require a site with a minimum of fifteen acres.The size of the e)dsting site is 5.83 acres,according to our records.The area covered by the public right-of-way has been used over the years for physical education classes and recess.Outside of the school day,the ball diamonds and soccer fields are used for athletic programs from John Marshall High School and other Rochester area athletic teams.The right-of-way area is used by spectators of those events.This space also serves as a buffer between student play areas and neighboring commercial property. When looking at the Washington Elementary School location,the south side of the property is the only side where thibre is no traffic concern from a student safety aspect.There are streets on the other three sides of the site.Putting a street or a public use alley along the south side of this school site would not only take away the current student use of that green space,but would also reduce the usable green space that is currently owned by the District.We would have to re-create the safety buffer zone between the play area and the new street and traffic flow. In viewing the proposal of Weis Development Corporation,the request for an alley access appears to be a misuse of a public right-of-way for a private development purpose,and not a public purpose as should be intended.Therefore,we are requesting the granting of the vacation of the public right-of-way and denial of the request to construct a street or alley. Sincerely, � RECEIVED Sheri Allen FEB 2 1 2008 Tarry Smith Director of Elementary I 'Iterim Director of Business Services and Secondary Education ROCHESTER-OLMSTED ARTMENT PLANNING DEP VC N o ty �� t� 1200 11to Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901-1715 �4 (507) 328-3800 http://www.rochester.kl2.mn.us/schoollO2 �Oc�%,* Fostering a thirst for knowledge February 20, 2008 Brent Svenby, Senior Planner Re: Request by Weis Corp to build Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner an alley on undeveloped right-of-way at City Planning and Zoning Commission 10th Street NW Rochester Government Center and --- - ------151 4 thStreefSE -------- -- --Re:Request by Rochester Public Schools — — - Rochester, Minnesota vacate that same right-of-way Dear Mr. Svenby and Ms. Fogarty: I am writing in opposition to a request by Weis Development Corp to construct a public alley on the undeveloped right-of-way at the south end of Washington School's property. The public land in question has been used by the school and community for athletic and recreational purposes for more than fifty years. When weather permits, it is used as part of the lap track for cardiovascular conditioning for all of our students. When the adjacent baseball diamonds and soccer fields are used for athletic events by John Marshall High School and Rochester Athletic teams, the land in question is used by parents and other • observers who come to watch the games. The field adjacent to the land is used throughout the day for physical education classes and recess for the 360 children, ages 5-11, who attend Washington School. Building an alley or road at that location would create a safety hazard for our students as traffic from both the 118-unit apartment complex and the neighborhood to the east of the school would be traveling within feet of our playing children. The lot on which Washington School is located is already smaller than the recommended lot size for a school of our capacity. The use of the public land at the south end of our fields has brought our usable space closer to the recommended guidelines. It has also provided a safety zone to separate our students from the commercial property south of the school. It makes more sense to officially vacate that property to the school than to construct a road or alley that would contribute to the danger of our students. I have no strong objections to the construction of the Washington Village complex as long as the access to the complex is to the south, east, and west of the buildings. Changing that plan to bring the traffic access to the north side so close to our students and asking us to forfeit the use of land to which we have always had access is the reason for my concern. Please deny the Weis Corp request. Instead, I urge you to grant the school district's petition to vacate the land in question for the continued use by Washington School and our surrounding neighbors. Sincerely, RECEIVED • Linda Stockwell, Principal FEB 2 Q 2J0� Washington Elementary School ROCHESTER-OLMSTED Pt.4NNiNG DEPARTMENT rLb.cc.tuba U:eloHM JOHN MRRSHRLL HS N0.734 P.2 JOHN MARSHALL SENIOR 151014th Streef N.W.,Rochester,MN $5901.0244 Phone(507)328-5400 Fax(50?)328-5295 Office of the Principal February 22,2008 Theresa Fogarty,Senior Planner Brent Svenby, Senior Planner Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester,MN 55904-474442 Re;Vacation Petition R2008-004VAC by Rochester School District#535,and Re:Revised Type M,Phase 11 Restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Weis Development Corp This letter is being is being submitted as written comment for both of the issues above which are to be addressed at the City Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting/homing on February 27,2008. John Marshall High School is looking at the issue from the aspect of safety and the need for"green space,,for our student/athletes to practice and occasionally play a competition on, John Marshall Mgh Sohool, as well as Washington Elementary School,are neighborhood schools and are positioned on very small acreages by today's standards, A school the size of John Marshall High School would require a minimum of sixty acres under currant guidelines set by the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of • Education for new school construction. John Marshall High SehooI has just loss than forty acres and much of our forty acres are used for parking and the footprint of the school. This situation less haft limited"green space"far physical education and athletic programs to use during the school day. Some of the John Marshall High School activities that use the Washington Elementary,site are football,soccer and softball. The south,side of the property is the area where parents will wait for their s��t athlete at the end of a practice and where all spectators will stand during a competition. I also know that the Rochester Youth Football Association uses Washington]elementary as a practice site and I have seen youth baseball and softball at that site in the summer. John Marshall High School believes that placing a street or alley on the south side of Washington Elementary School property would be a student and public safety concern. Along with that major concern is the reduction of the limited"green space"that Washington Elementary has at this time. We believe it is in the best interests of the community that we continue to have vibrant neighborhood schools in Rochester,which offer as much space e possible for students and the rest of the public to use. As we view the proposal of Weis Devolopment Corporation,the request for an alley access appears to ba a misuse of a public right-of-way for a private development purpose,and not a public purpose as should be intended, John Marshall High School is requesting the granting of the vacation of the public pose a right-of-way and denial of, o request to construct a street or alley. S' carely, Richard Stirn Principal • Equal Opportunity Employer ED Page 1 of 1 Fogarty Theresa • From: FredDalyl 1 C aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:24 PM To: Fogarty Theresa Subject: Revised Type III, Phase II restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Joe Weis Weis Development approached the school district about selling them our interest in the street right-of-way a few months ago. The school board turned him down because we need the land for our school programs and have no interest in selling. Now Weis is trying to wrest control of the land by getting it to be declared a public alley even thought it obviously is just to be an entrance and parking lot for his development. —The Washington School property-is 5-83acres. State-guidelines-call for-a-school-this-size to-be-atteast 14-acres.-We I are already short on green space and giving up a good portion of it just is not will be detrimental to our programming. Washington School just received a Presidential Award as one of the very best schools in our nation. I ask you not take an action that could hurt one our nations finest schools. The school board has received considerable input from the neighborhood confirming they don't want the right-of-way to become a street, alley, or private parking lot.The latest plan I have seen calls it a public alley but any reasonable person can see it is just a private driveway with parking for the development's apartments. Weis Development knew the size of the property when they bought it.They should develop a project that fits on the property they own. To covet your neighbor's property is bad enough but to try taking it over after your neighbor has declined to sell is just plain nasty. Please do not approve this application. • Fred Daly RECEIVED 000FEEB ZQZ Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Livin R0CH .STER-OLMSTED PL NN!NG DEPARTMENT • 2/20/2008 January 21, 2008 Ardell Brede c.,, e 6: ,- - 653 16"' Street SW Rochester MN 55902 Fred Daly 216 75" Street NW Rochester MN 55091 Request for assistance -- As you know, Washington Elementary School is located just north of the former Bachmans/Carousel greenhouse on 1 lth Ave NW. Weis Builders purchased the greenhouse property to build high-rise apartments.It appears the project is too big for the site because the school district was approached give up some land so Weis could construct a parking lot. The property is an easement for a one-block extension of I O`h Street NW which was platted but never built early last century.Weis asked the school district to consider selling the land so Weis could ask the city to vacate the easement and allow the high-rise property to expand north. The school board voted to not enter into negotiations because we don't want to sell the property. The Washington site is already half the size the Minnesota Department of Education guidelines require for this size school. The site is crowded already. Also, Washington School just won a Presidential Blue Ribbon Award as one of the outstanding schools in the nation. It makes no sense to cut the size of out star school. Now I hear Weis has approached the City/County Planning Commission to ask that I Orh Street NW be extended to 1 It"Ave NW. Since we won't sell, they are asking the city to take the property from us. This would put a city street right next to our playground and softball field. We also have a ruining path that goes through this property that gets much use as part of the districts wellness policy. These are the tactics that give developers a bad reputation. Weis knew the size of the property when they bought it. They designed a project too large for the property then coveted their neighbor's properties both north and south. When the school district declined to sell,Weis decided to ask the city to take it from us. Could the city council please Iet the planning commission know that the school district really does need this land and does not want it turned into a street? It has been school grounds for over 50 years and serves as a buffer between our playground and commercial properties. Fred Daly Rochester School Board Phone 282-7036 e-mail freddaly l l a aol.com 10/4/2007 10:54 FROM: Fa7 V2shington PTA TO: 2E1-1468 PAGE: C T 002 The Washington PTA has gathered this information per your request. Washington Elementary school is located at 1200 11th Avenue Northwest in Rochester. Our school has 359 students from kindergarten through fifth grade. Eighty-nine percent of our students ride the bus to and from school. Ten percent are dropped off and picked up in cars,and one percent walk. We have six busses which drop oft'children between 8:30 AM and 9:00 AM and pick them up between 3:15 PM and 3:45 PM. Morning kindergarten students are picked up between 11:45 AM and 12:00 PM. Afternoon kindergarten students arrive between 12:30 PM and 12:45 PM. We also have a group of trained third,fourth and fifth graders who do safety patrol on the front side(across 11a' avenue)-— 4-behind-the school(12� treet-and-1-0t'avenue).—We-have a-school-child=care program before and after school which serves about fifteen children between 6:30 AM and 9:00 AM,and twenty children between 3:15 PM and 6:00 PM. Also,twenty children come to school early for breakfast which is served from 9:45 AM to 9:00 AM. We have many after-school programs,some with over one hundred students,that meet on various days throughout the year,usually from 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM. If you need any further information please contact one of the Washington PTA officers. Washington PTA President: Melissa Mergen Co-Vice-Presidents: Heidi Rubin and Jennifer Tweed Secretary: Michelle Stepanek • Treasurer. Val kaliszewski Additional PTA contacts: .Amy Dyer Jane Lundquist • r , Re: Washington ViPlarve This property is zoned B-4 It does not allow residential units A more appropriate use would be the commercial purpose for which it was zoned Shops or offices Drug store Senior citizens center School expansion A restricted development is being proposed It's not very restricted It proposes 118 apartment units on a small piece of land, over 450 people This is an extreme density where'zoning doesn't allow If this density were applied to my property, I could have a 12-plex on a quarter acre It does not match with the neighborhood density Spread out in the neighborhood, 'it would cover 5 V2 square blocks. See map pg 52, • highlighted area It does not match up with the neighborhood building heights All 2 story or less except for one; See map pg 53 It does not even fit on its own site. It borrows property from the neighbors to the south and the north with no buffer! See;site plan pg 19 It adds additional traffic to the neighborhood road that encircles Washington school.The additional evening and nighttime'traffic on the residential directly violates the zoning ordinance criteria. 62.708 1-�d-3 Therefore,if this project is r}ot outright rejected,it should be redesigned so that it fits in the scope and scale of the ndght orhood,sets on its own lot,delivers traffic to 1 la'Av and is buffered from the neighborhood. Lyle Plumhoff Washington)School Neighbor 1010 9"Av N l•Ir� '4'r�.1 �•.• ..,..��.�` _.'v��'., !�t y "+r�<! D `�'o9'.+Tsw.{�! 1� �. + V � :Jtl � r _ w� � Wi Pat f;.,sr,u� uw.tti asi`tr'tt+ w2 ►"afK�,fkR7a$,g,!.�' r',.rtn} t.�:a :,;zt 1,pp r n ." r �. Y sr. }.. .{. r. r.R. .. '.1:za. ... x. ;.;,r-n*-.•.r�•.x. :t.hv .cJ.:..::, y .+ e ,.�.:!. .i ) w «., .. y SC:}y. - .�.ri's•, rr f.", _ r..` _t.a"s. F^t•,',rr ia'++ .,, kq,,@r.'r ,+,.x..Y ':.a _,,...: ,::':,t rr.:-;,..,.- ! r.,:v, ::�.. ram, -.. .....dal°i a' '-»'^t.-•K�.4:JTN . �:,. .� tr{"Ar1 a >< e. :V{$ •W, +vtr? .: �. r:•. :. + �tl� t � It, a: +�� •,�: q` f - ,� � A, .II y ��, ! h } F , � I !rF �� * }r �f,:4i i t}tt ifi!z ki N� r �t� ..I".r ) � r➢ 4+y� � "' ';S T v' n• (4,_r 1.. i t Z ?�: � r l .1, �t�'v5_ ,s,; !y?,,+�,:,nr �,c Q ,<,. s yr -`�'F )+ t/V g-S•; .�. �-. �'�7..r���,n�S+.-- 9< u�` o `tk; �� �:.Jfr a fi` t�' �..{"rAi F y� pp '�: ,'+� r• 1 U , + � 7'�r., t� 11gy9$t,I+�l'; .;..,• r Gs rtr Nf�' - • !r-e.;ilr '' -.1��IV Wes° .c,s��(:• L �'4 _r f�]y, k.�,1!4 { a ( ! l�`1 -r' - }+'pZ��7 r1. �' ff � x `�-,� r k�, t' 1 I ,, - r. p - I 5 :5y f�Y.&'<t•� 7 ' ,1( i+ �r '�7{ tY' •'. 4' Y t.. i� .,...- Y,p� $•., '. -a.,?"5°"7r5+"�l,;wr 1��^—. .N,:t:i r+ p'.,-'r-,az�et.. •.ry'�za,.• �.,'�` ,f,`.,�..n r;r :r- '�„r ...�.. �,.t •"� t to:r' ;.. '" �""• tF. 1fJ �,..., u+, + V� � � '?. •,' Hr3�':I i'h``{-a ,:c cw :�, f-. ��v:' ..?,f.�'k�.:'1'� y.;,t��Y4:1`r.;iu)+�.._T.,` xc..,4r v -- �_ :. r�.. ye e 9'•' "i ;° }j`s$� r-�: . � rrf J ','! c..� (,r.,fr RW ,.. �� . ,. �, ;�. r< i i�'ro cF' :. v J+}� -:.��.ql , ',r� t'�ca,:.�;r? �,"; .1!�; y ,� � (1.,r i f�; �y ° `,?�# '-.C�.• "<,1l# `'J' „Jk-'i k, 3y 1111"; .3,: r.. ,�'j" ,�. ft r,N ��YrD` � ,. � �,. �,» • t;. . .t: f..�`. •I .f► t .I. �.�, �. :v a .1,� � 4,�t,3 ,`'`�'t'ki {'y 6}; �� w� !rl l?y, "'' _ .LS'' '. r�,{ '': t '" �{• .�' :� L. �'��� e�°��".p"`�9 �.� k!P3j tt'aRR++ ;�: t :� .4.i '`�• " �t tt �}yl_. < 1 1 ,s j i•t ac-m+�7+<:. ,v<•'iu,, }'c :.t, -:t:.; _- ¢•.qrl _ r r ...r a a.., } r ,.y� r._ ..--�.�r r,T.mn,:3 i5a[•tr� :xq r:c act rr.r;, ,. Rk l` �.,,7Q!: ,,� ,+:. •!}�:` 4.e 6-•_s re ty._:. t�_` . . . .r •� _ ..'\ v`aJs:.�-'�- mT-x':F�I tf1ti;.', �-y+��""3�C�`�L�_ •� W��i`+ .' i.kV`°: t ':d�y `�"' t _7h,tR..,;..t �xy". - ,. � ,. .:, ,,, .�,,,.. ..,h 4 :}L�I'_,� ..:^f;,.,.;{• �j ,y.:§. ?�; .T.?-... r.w..� ";+''•'vf�!`�'Fi,s�'y M>ti, .+'l+"9t'�f�..-: } ,„�} It.'� ,yw!�1�. t�5:. r'{^.^ ':�`'��;., ;,x�rE. ':d �i�J .f t1"3r%r<t},a r;f ? "�.+.— '.6:�. !< I I.lx �. `� - 2�<�'i•, `'p � �. ..i. �.,v, .� '7C.Y - I �.;.!�. �n ___ �t•1 ., n; l t- ti (1 1� v. ra} :.� v Lr;J t:. - .i. 'l, > �+ fe• �'�' .E" � a{� .1 .� # � _ 1 _ f r �~S 4� � .5 '�._I IL• ,n 1:.. a+;, rpy ,1-i;, f � l,Ju ,•;. ,tot. Y svl , i t;, '! ,%::, +t , � '^, k :! F U �•�, , Ft ?.r.. ��',• t•� � '(.""�, I�Ij" rrtr rr.. �r ��'.,�. a .;� }. r'�r+ p� � ��_ ..�y TIN,! < i r k ,f �.�� 1t<�, I 111 fi')lr�y'F�-+' •,.4� 3� t� ^�. I 5-;.. � -"4. .�, ,p_ F IiL .`3x .;1�r:�{'� y' fray. "`ry 11 'rS+ .'f,�Y! ��1,}�. f ,��aj;�u �.+hVr�l:(yll f= "stir }� � iy a. �-• ,:,4 .:,. F`: ,.`'Y,i - J F; JI i, E F f..+i. tilir. °-W"�++.w R� -nT. ~12 ,r ;+�.,a.J;r + R t:.a 5' •��0u t� kr � at7 -� t j a.T 1 - .'Y�. �. 1•t- ,t�: 33 +fd�l., �•fq -:�' t.. +FY :'+ 4- f!1 � .. _-.`�'?'R", t .R. M .ryr Y.. f',-' J✓ ' N7+ _ '� � /(1 { gg k i. 1u f a k - f. r .!• •iwtNv.F. .�.: 't . - r ;:< r,:, �',! ...:i- '?:.rinr•-' - +a :..i.. i-:.S Yea f J etc ,' '.x r •� a a:;. : v .: l �!�Fkf 1 If t.t .Mqr y� I:,F�r y `:r •,r u � ;7�y .6t, i�h 'i.+ , J� „f i t.....: .,..ref, vff:k ",w , x \ V J., �'�:.�. � ... L, 4 ;.• ,t'•it i� ::.!i �z'�:} t)(A �!�' � >) t qk.... :i.:}: , t G !��.':'_�•,,,,.�c aS9 ; - �,f!'� �liv� ��r7 ..+ ,y � a - ,.�! I A3tt'!s'r. � ...:h:i r` t r,; a.: 4�,p. •+<s":il�!�'-_. .. ., -y7 ... �. �! .EY'^", ��!� 1,,. L }!Y`-€1r ... ..,x' i_�:. �` �rr< r�•f + .... 0 ...85 ..-170 340 Feet N Olmsted County is not responsible for ommissions or errors contained herein. If discrepancies are found within this map,please notify the GIS Division,Rochester-Olmsted County Planning Department,2122 Campus Drive SE,Rochester,MN 55904,(507)285-8232. �.n �• ���r":s�; � i �ti� •-'�'�,� �:, '�Y �` J".- "s i _ Ff a �f:I' ➢ t �e}" :I 9° -.r.r,ry Y *fir. S.,i,,..Ea ai, - u4, ^ ^ - J i .J :,:,4 .;_"• rr d`;��ah S�.��z� ryill:.• t' :, , ;�!- p"..F '�t �.*. '�, �(V���r'� �, Tn, ,� �'` t `.},• .4;, � ��pi}�+iV.�. '!rr� ,�::, .�1 t '?A$..�'^r�" I 1 � r I ,! �t� , lip 'ktr„t J .i ,i T ,a •IA �1 yp �g1:. ee�tdK t'• ��r•r S +K -1' •I � t �, t. � yy :'�+ 1� � ♦� i � r {{ f°�t;q�• a�s+:-. }�.r+(4r',^1` �1;2Y��'�t� 1-°� t .t, t } ' ON yya �h't}�� K k ,, «. .t...:: ,.we....A..'f1�' ..?;`•...�1�r�:.?4_irY�.. .::r..�.4. :ei�- V ';r �L Xr �+S >t �n ;�t�S.'�"_;� �.z'e.:su -� -:i-.�.... ;.7 � '�d:' +.' - �. q��ee (rllPM;� e ul : n(. � wrrllkC?'rt1rlF 1 1 rla} ;4; t' �: t, I n i r� �r,JI-: �" I �{. >,t s,.t.:.::� � l�,r �• , ��., t it �" r'` 1 '�' �, mr r .t� �r111+ItRt'1�IRN-. 1l _! 7 '��Sikl ��;` - I _ �k,•ac• - .. �' r t .a." '. - ct, �,i�?-.�, ,F- f-_ .. I - �,- :P'.• "(' i '.w a t t. ., '( t >Ar: •� '� '� ^� v ;:\ \ .w:':. !1 ItMI'n,7. •{ -..� It - s`��. _ '. �' f 1 1 ^i . 6 ; ,A ' s:,e ¢ 43.,�fK�, "s.. - r<.' r..hE(j ./.'�-1k�.1 _� !',. ...lr�.. y� 1 �'t"• 1R. i9 ,� w "`�: k I ' ��, . ..t � ,u. p ... ..:�� 1,-y_ "'rsINS�.MS14T11fe � �' �. - t`}1cl"� •il4 �-�,•. �7 �.,�t.. ,i" - ,. ':}I lttr,,i ^�. � �*J,i �.t A�--, h i��►114 e'+�� � 3 eY ;fir t _-t..-., TT 'Yi• {w-. Id: .-..r,,....aR. i` f .s�� rr'�� "�;! F's.,r., ;"9 r+ � e, !ar •� n:^�:t:' � 'y, �,T nS `+MO,Ffii N_ ';r s '4 �y �,'�'fi : ,r 17 •� �+. iY I� i�tt'diFi}: �_'' :tw# a� i£i }� d, 4;d':4d. ?s ,b `� trr 't' I ' tx i (• •� 1 - i q :�• Y��„ '.S'�7; *`+f 4, 1;;".�f�h,. 'si.L-flt .:!'dw.sani:S ,.�,.,.,.::+q"H tt:y � 4n,c,� ts! it hE. f. .a s'► �t'is3 �.s;V`1 y,t5 rnk�'fm:�!'%� � }��" �• - f:e 'P li�i IE"�` E�;�} ,� � �. ry t;. yy - � 5 ' �- ',:��/'.t,a•7:�Li-�4.�1'�+��7 •.:::��� � o .. k.:.,. �`I ..t� ,. 'r.J,� M1i J�=ln q�t ror �� �Y �`. ,htr ( ,y�.i� _ �._-.. lir .1. ^!:1'.R. ::y; .'l.> r.r.-..yv.-,✓" �. � t;� I� �- rFltit4,,,`,�y�'�—•hf: ,I�tltr thf '-'�'.,T .�a�." �. t �'..3.•i/d r�( ii. / Jai } �'d;'�` � �,j ,(.� ;t�: tt9 1° >.:,> �1;.{ ,. _ r F`1 = �rt ;r• t*t s210 f ,a r .C, 5P a. �3 '�'�'1. ; •s-._ E. yy t 3 ",.I,w`', i , , {....I. 71, '�'_thy i i Py3w t. t1F r. � .&..,,�ku�•�i Ij �>�: } ,, rr,!�: ;:, � (� � �' 7. 'u"ij �G' " ;:..:_ '�' !.r. ;;'," t"i- �,�.- r t te� �� �K�,�•. <t t z.i � ps: d I1•-1. '( :I�' ''�!!� r 4 '�i i- ,+� cc � } �' ai { 1�57. x 15,_nn...,., �• N 1 ,y {,1• �.i. t}-S Y 4(ddit �'F T .--�.�"`".'�'t a ,-d: e�, l t ,`�''pH.�7�� p e• u .rt;- ,c>-, - �,, d -t1''! � ( �' -1: t'. '>�1'I -",... "ti..t'-77 r.1) �`�L r„ ��{,r} ir,' r� •.` fYMV.l`'z't +:: ,r+' # l,��y.r ,.J I. � ..7 •H� A., r - � 1 ,; rF} } y L'�. �Ic� '}.I) Ij 2 �I- �MIE' k• .p l+,f• E' 'I t � 1 �r"• r�, � �t � !E is f_:: �� ,} � w, `E�lq'Ik'� ti+-.:�� Y rl, >� ..^.+`j 1S.° �Ja=�n g, i-_ t�;..,(� ,;", _:x �I,=(a - ';x�,.�:ls, �.,. � rdt^,• x s":4`f �, ��,,jj,� ^,``•-'•�._ t ;�` .r.,JJ _.pt� raI-_ r..<..+' �Y itr <6. ,.v kk P - rqx.:: - :F,-.'c. �'j7 Cr!-:,, G> 1: � "�'i � �,'.. -tY' 'd.;'.Ti+{ �,'^-•�' .t-t, it !'S :d:. .,; t•A: .r, .:��.2 i.�.. � .;.� �1 f".t,rt � .t xlrM - I S. ,(t. I� � ��' "��' f. - :�'"i ;i �` T:c: ^', cr .(� --�.*•,, :Ak':*�( ;I.i< t`�,�iy ,� '+� I„�'�j er 3 a,Y.(r} a;�k�''C �.;.J. �E'', t� �±' R::-. ,�, ( ,� i ;i• �F,N '.tT-1 Y ,�:t. :�' M1O J'�i:Ir 'i ! ':�4,. �: F .k,tit;..:1 f lr�' - R,'�f'• 5- .�, S "11:. wy , E" ..::Is' f,.,. '�}r + ;� .: �'.: � p t '`�ESf;">••'E ,..� �`.'.`,'mow,i!""p "�:,,..' (,.fi:^.esf.'=S.} � ��•'+ I�,'+�,�' h. _ �. I; ' ':::L(ty R'".'.� P,e'..:*yyr',.; : .;,,.; ':.. •. :_.-'"7•}�'_;...ts�t.:'<?-.; :. 't �k'}: p� rf{,1" ),H, i�..iy. x.t �* � t a E ,17:I.Y'�. J./1. .:l i.f� �h t, 'r "per• f-.U'� � 1..��1'^1 J i.'Cu'taF 5 1 �1.. - 4:j ' f s4;Ey # 'f:s" 3 li-t ��'s,.,t � �;:. $Sf' Q t l" -r�:r, ip,"t`r�'":� f tf''. 't:i '� .J^.n -1..•, :E �1',.1 �.. .a ''[�:IiF ..::. ,,-lt•+. :.r`'^k.�: 4 t!97l r,1 Tf�•��s�," vF" r',`°�' '"^s�.r", 'f` .5 1` 'i .y: -� � ✓1�1..:.: to(.� ( ,. � ..'F.:,t ,'� v [�F 'wl"<,t4. IA' 1T(u F ( ca: 1 1. >it:, 'FI � P. ..)f.. 1. H;��S !r!- k E� "'j; �f)At �� ",tt.'t.•Fr _ �t �. "".r t� ( r� � ;' 't" .� �- `d.>w; .,y. I:;;: ',i, J _+...y�{y+1 �H, t.� ,,�11 v:`,t4�•F-._ 't ,:i �"4": i. .'f f r:t' �...r.t. r �'�f��"fit '�Ri: C V!'7, Ft f�::..rf, r' ;ey q• •+1 _1 fz 7: "':1�,r.1'� r'y�y,+. � 4. -�,' �':a'��� w_ •;e I, ,lr. ...,1.� �' f �•.�n��,. .ti ,',>.... - L� irl fa.at4 ,{,.;tl 1 ��4F".�INb r t. YYd�'., i._ �pJ. ,}�t`,� `•Rr�_� :tU�� �i" - �t. ".T,: ti.,}a. yam, !r �t. _ _ c. .-_ ."� l�f��z_ - 'ia. _ .:7,'. Alssse[esn..� �r... .eVS e:nH.r.. �� -�' ..::�d�. '�.' 1 �=:�. ..q�^rtii!`�s...•u...., ._ J` �,I _ � f 0 '120-;`"240 %480"Feet N�Olmsted County Is not responsible for ommisslons or errors contained herein. If discrepancles are found within this map,please notify the GIS Division,Rochester-Olmsted County Planning Department,2122 Campus Drive SE,Rochester,MN 55904,(507)285-8232. • 0 • City Of Roster j • Traffic Operations 24 Civic Cener Dr NE } Street : 10 Avenue NW Block 1110 Blk Site: 2007062834 Direction &Cou a= upper b= lower 34 Weekly Volume Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Weekday Week Interval 8/27/2007 8/28/2007 8/29/200� 8/30/2007 8/31/2007 9/1/2007 9/2/2007 Average Average Begin_ upper(w lower(e upper(w lower(e upper(w lower(e upper w lower(e up er w 'lower(e u g 12:00 AM - - - 1 2 0 4 ( pper(w lower(e upper(w I lower(e upper(w lower(e upper(w lower(e 2:00 AM - - 0 2 0 0 _ _ - - 3.0 0.5 - -3.0 05 3:00 AM - 0 0 0 0 - - 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3:00 AM - _ _ 0 0 ,O. 0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 4:00 AM - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 5:00 AM - _ _ 00 p 0 1. - 0.0 0.5 0.0 7:00 AM - - 0.0 0.5 0.0 " - - - 1 6 2 6 - - 7:00 AM 5 10 1 1 2 5 .,. - 1.5 ._ 6 0 1.5 6.0 8:00 AM 8 11 5 13 3 2 - - - 2.7 5.3 2.7 5.3 9:00 AM - - 2 it 2 7 - - - _ ( - 5.3 8.7 5.3 8.7 10:00 AM - 3 4 2 3 - - - - 2.0 9.0 2.0 9.0 11:00 AM - - 8 16 40 47 . - - _ - - - - 2.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 12:00 PM - 7 12 37 74 - - 24.0 31.5 24.0 31.5 1:00 PM - 3 4 19 16 - 22.0 43.0 22.0 43.0 2:00 PM 3 6 5 13 - - 11.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 3:00 PM - - 4 8 1 13 _ i - 4.0 9.5 4.0 9.5 4:00 PM - - 6 9 2 13 - - - 2.5 10.5 2.5 10.5 5;00 PM - 0' 10 = 17 9 - - _ - 4.0 11.0 4.0 11.0 6:00 PM 7 7 12 12 - - - - j 8.5 9.5 8.5 9.5 7:00 PM - - 0 7' -'20 22 - - - 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8:00 PM - _ 4 7 6 6 _ - - 10.0 14.5 10.0 14.5 9:00 PM - - 1 2 1 4: - ( - 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.5 10:00 PM - - 0 4 1 5 _ - 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 11:00 PM - - 1 4.. 0 4. 0.5 4.5 0.5 4.5 0.5 4.0 0.5 4.0 Totals - 62 132 173 272 - I 117.0 204.5 117,0 204.5 Combined 194 445 26 _ Split(%) - - 32.0 68.0 38.9 61.1 26.9 73.1 - _ - 321.5 321.5 36.4 63.6 ' 36.4 AM Peak - - 8:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 8:00 AM 6:00 AM _ Volume - 8 16 40 47 $ 6 _ - - 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM - 24.0 31.5 24.0 31.5 PM Peak - 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 7 12 37 74 _ 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 22.0 43.0 22.0 43.0 j Report Date: 9/4/2007 5:43 AM -- i City Of Rochester Traffic Operations 24 Civic Cener Dr NE Street 10 Avenue NW - Site: 2007082831 Block 1014 Direction &Cou a= upper b= lower 31 Weekly Volume Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Weekday Week Interval 8/27/2007 8/28/2007 8/29/2007 8/30/2007 8/31/2007 9/1/2007 9/2/2007 Average Average Begin Upper Ro Lower Ro Upper Ro Lower Ro Upper Ro Lower Ro Upper Ro Lower Ro Upper Ro Lower Ro Upper Ro Lower Ro Upper Ro Lower Ro Upper Ro Lowe_r Ro Upper Ro Lower Ro 12:00 AM - - 1 0 0 0 - - - - 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 1:00AM - - - 0 1. ' 0 1 - - - - - - 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2:00 AM - - 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3:00 AM 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4:00 AM - - 0 0 0 0 - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 5:00AM - - - - 0- � .•0 ... ...0 .. 1 , ..�: - - - - - - 0.0 0.5 0.0 e'. 6:00 AM - - 1 3 2 6 - - - - - 1.5 4.5 1.5 4.5 7:00 AM - 2 6 1 2 2 =••.2 - - - - - - 1.7 3.3 1.7 3.3 8:00 AM 6 6 4 12 3 2 - - - - - 4.3 6.7 4.3 6.7 9:00 AM 2 11 .1. '5 - - - - - - 1.5 8.0 1.5 8.0 10:00 AM 4 5 3 5 - - - - - - 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 11:00 AM 11 13 26 10 - - - - - - 18.5 11.5 18.5 11.5 12:00 PM - 9 11 30 36 - - - - - - - - 19.5 23.5 19.5 23.5 1:00 PM - - 2 8 10_ 9 - - - - - - - 6.0 8.5 6.0 8.5 2:00 PM 5 7 5 10 - - - - - - 5.0 8.5 5.0 6.5 3:00 PM - - 5 3 .2 0. - - - - - - - 3.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 4:00 PM - - 7 10 4 13 - - - - - 5.5 11.5 5.5 11.5 5:00 PM - 0 3 4 77 - - - - - 2.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 6:00 PM - - 7 8 8 4 - - - - - - - 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7:00 PM - - 0 4 15 .,..;14. _ - - - - - - - - 9.5 9.0 9.5 9.0 8:00 PM - - 2 4 6 8 - - - - - - 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 9:00 PM - - 1 2 0 5 - - - - - - - 0.5 3.5 0.5 3.5 10:00 PM 0 1 1 5 - - - - - - - 0.5 3.0 0.5 3.0 11:00 PM - - 0 6 0 _ 1 - . - - - 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 ' Totals 63 108 126 158 7 12 - - - - - 95.0 134.0 95.0 134.0 Combined - 171 284 19 - - 229.0 229.0 Split(%) - 36.8 63.2 44.4 55.6 36.8 63.2 I - - - - - - 41.5 58.5 41.5 AM Peak - 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 8:00 AM 8:00 AM 6:00 AM - - - 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume - 11 13 26 12 3 6 - - - - - - 18.5 11.5 18.5 11.5 PM Peak - 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM - - - - - - 12:00 PM 12;00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume - 9 11 30 36 - -i - , - - - 19.5 23.5 19.5 23.5 Report Date: 9/4/200 5:32 AM • _ot::E� V7- n '� .:/✓l t ' � "/ `�/�i�/,�(//J'1���—t'�IZCfiJ-�—�i� '-- Gf.J"�� ��t�''i i��Gil� ��—�i'Y�-1--'! •�� -�f`-E=� ✓lJ` _.l�iLls- �' vf�GL —F�/'t��Lc%�iZt,.fil.mac.''/ %1�ti--t=2��.-2C-. _�-P� C=—l2.iz f` ✓ 4 �C�C-c��sz� ��cLJ ZD • OGT 3 3 2007 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED pLI;NNiNG DEPARTMENT Statement to the City Planning and Zoning Commission 10 October 2007 • The residents of the East-side neighborhood have serious concerns regarding the proposed development's compatibility, density,,traffic, and parking. Our concerns are as follows: Point 1: General Compatibility, Section 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments, item 1 k, City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Excerpts "The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings." It is stated on page 5, item i that"the character of the surrounding neighborhood should not be affected by this proposed use. The density (48.9 units/acre compared to 47.33 units/acre) is generally consistent with the multi-family residential dwelling located to the south of the site. • The comparison of the proposed development to Northgate Plaza is poor. There are about 154 residents of Northgate Plaza and the proposed development would accommodate a maximum of 486 people (90% capacity of 438). • The impact of 486 people in such a small space is great In terms of density, • impact on residents, and traffic, the proposed development would have a great impact on our East-side neighborhood. • Northgate Plaza is NOT a multi-family dwelling. It is comprised of 151 one bedroom apartments for seniors and disabled individuals. • In terms of actual appearance, there is nothing in our neighborhood that resembles this proposed development. The scale of this development, as proposed, quite simply would not be compatible with its surroundings". • Maximum of 198 ppl may be living at Washington East(90% capacity is 178). • Maximum of 288 ppl may be living at Washington West(90% capacity is 260). Point 2: Residential Traffic Impact, Section 62.708, item 1 d (same source) 'When located in a residential area, the proposed development will NOT create additional traffic during the evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets" It is stated on page 5 from item °d"as "the use will create additional traffic during the evening and nighttime hours on the local residential streets. • We are concerned about an increase of traffic and a decrease of safety due to the only access to the proposed Washington East being 101'Ave and 101' St. This will create a marked increase in traffic, noise and vehicle lights. RECEIVED OCT 1 h-2007 ROcrEST_R-OLMSTED PLANNINC DEDARTh1ENT • • Approximately 50 children five in the immediate East Washington school area and would be directly impacted by the increased traffic. Children are more likely to get hit by cars in areas with high traffic volume, a higher number of parked cars on the street. Children under age 10 are particularly vulnerable to pedestrian injuries because they are exposed to traffic threats that exceed their cognitive, developmental, behavioral, physical and sensory abilities. • We feel that all traffic should be directed to 11'h Ave NW and there should be no access via 101h Ave NW& 10" St NW. Point 3: Visitor parking • There is no mention of allotted visitor parking for the proposed development of this property. How many visitors/guests will be at the proposed development with the potential for 486 ppl occupying the 2 units? • No parking is allowed on 11'h Ave NW. The only option would be for visitors to park along 10'h St NW and 10t'Ave NW. This would compromise the safety of our neighborhood for reasons already stated in the previous point • The current allotment of 12"spillover" parking places is inadequate for visitor parking given the estimated occupancy. • Currently the plan will need to accommodate 8 additional "spillover" parking places. Where will these additional 8 spaces be found? • This high density housing proposal will greatly compromise the safety of our neighborhood, the students of Washington Elementary School, and the residents of Northgate Plaza who walk in our neighborhood daily if there are no visitor parking spaces provided. On behalf of the East-side residents, I respectfully ask that this committee postpone approval of this proposed development until the concerns of the neighborhood residents can be fully addressed, and allow for review of a Final Plan. Lisa M. Peterson, 912 101h St NW, Rochester, MN • ii • VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES I • <vl_ MEETING MINUTES FOR THE VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD I.NFORMAT.IONAL MEEETING YAGGY .Project: Washington Village Multifamily Housing Development Date: September 24,2007 Time: 6:30 p.m. ASSOCIATES Location: Washington School Media Center Participants: See attached list MIMES Distributed via email to:Brent Svenby, Rochester Planning and Zoning __ Jo—cLWeis,—Weis_DeyLlopment Nfif111i'fCd� -- Ron Kreinbring,Weis Builders Josh Johnson,Yaggy Colby Associates l R fl fl S C fl P E fl H C II I T E CT S Jason Woodhouse,Yaggy Colby Associates Yaggy Colby Associates File SUflUE9URS Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the proposed project to the neighborhood and to answer questions and document concerns or issues that may need P i fl p O f h S further investigation. This informational meeting was not a requirement of the zoning ordinance, but rather was done on a voluntary basis to inform the neighbors of the proposed development. • General Discussion: A presentation was given by Joe Weis, Josh Johnson, Jason Woodhouse and Dave Weisner on the proposed development. Presentation graphics flucltester Office: included a vicinity map, proposed site plan and proposed building elevations. Handouts 717 Third Avenue SE of the proposed site plan and building elevations were made available to the attendees. A Rochester,MN 55904 summary of the items presented and discussed are summarized as follows: 607.288-6464 607-288-505s Fax 1. Joe gave a background on Weis Builders and Weis Development and their history in Rochester, including developing affordable housing for the city.`` 2. Joe gave background information on the type of funding he was proposing to use for a portion of the project, which is Section 42 funding through the PPls/t1 Paul Office: Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. 651-681-9040 3. Josh explained the proposed layout of the site including access points, Olasun City Office: building locations, etc. He indicated several review meetings were held with 641.424.6344 city staff to review the proposed project and the proposed site plan is a result of the input from the city and the developer. Oeiafieid Office: 4. Neighbors raised a concern about the current traffic volume on 11t1i Avenue 262-6<s-6e65 and 100 Street due to the location of John Marshall and St. Pius schools to the east. They commented that traffic gets backed up on 10`i' Street in the afternoon with people trying.to get onto I I t" Ave. The neighbors asked about � a stoplight at this intersection. Josh explained in the meetings with the city, P « there was never any discussion about a stoplight at this intersection. Josh also , explained this was part of the reason for distributing the access points for this f development to three different locations in the site. Underground parking for I the west building is accessed from the North-ate Plaza driveway. Surface and 17 I • undergrotuid parking for the east building is accessed from loth Avenue. ` 4 d� C Surface parking for the west building is accessed from 1 lth Avenue directly across from 10 Street. The surface parking for the west building would probably be the least used of the three locations. Q a • 5. Neighbors raised concerns about the volume of traffic at the driveway to North�ate Plaza. Josh explained the developer has an agreement with the Northgate Plaza owner to utilize this driveway for the underground parking access for the west building. Also, based on meetings with the city, this driveway would be widened to three lanes to allow for incoming traffic, outgoing northbound traffic and outgoing southbound traffic. This would help alleviate some of the congestion at this driveway. Internal stop signs would also be utilized to control traffic movement within the site. 6. Neighbors brought up questions/concerns about the rental rates, the type of people that would be renting these apartments, the management and security of the property, -" etc. Dave Weisner of Paramark explained they would be the managing company for the proposed development. He also went on to explain the procedures they use for background checks they use for potential tenants. The checks include: a criminal background check, financial background check, and a previous landlord check. Dave also explained the rental rates and the income qualifications for these units. Paramark provides an on-site building supervisor/maintenance person. They also have an on- site office, which is typically staffed during normal office hours. A copy of the proposed rental rate schedule is attached to these meeting minutes. 7. Concerns/questions were raised about the number of people allowed per dwelling unit and how that is monitored controlled. Concern was expressed about one person renting a unit and then having 10 family members or friends living in the same unit. Dave explained that there are regulations to the number of people per dwelling-units. One bedroom units are allowed two people, two bedroom imits are allowed four • people and three bedroom units are allowed six people. He also explained that units are monitored on a continuous basis, so that if occupancy of a unit exceeded what was allowed,these would eventually be found and resolved. 8. Concern was raised about the safety of kids in area schools and churches due to the affordable housing and the type of people that live in this development. Joe and Dave explained that this type of housing is geared towards a number of different people in different stages of life. One scenario is a single, working mother with two children. This development would provide an affordable, clean and safe place to live. Another target market is a young professional or Mayo resident that is just out of college and getting started in their career. Dave explained that the income brackets and the background checks are their way of ensuring this remains a good, clean, safe place to live in and adjacent to. 9. Neighbors raised concerns about the impact this development may have on their home values. Joe replied that he has seen no indication from past projects that this type of development has had a negative impact on home values in the surrounding areas. 10. Josh indicated that they city is planning to upgrade 11`h Avenue between 7`h Street and 10`' Street within the next year. He also indicated that the city is considering widening 11`h Avenue from 10`' Street up to 14`h street to make this a four-lane road. The neighbors had concerns that this would only worsen the traffic/speeding problem on the street. • 11. Josh indicated that they city is planning to upgrade 11'h Avenue between 7'h Street and 10`' Street within the next year. I-Ie also indicated that the city is considering widening I I"' Avenue from 10`h Street up to 14`h street to make this a four-lane road. The neighbors had concerns that this would only worsen the traffic/speeding problem on the street. 12. Concerns were raised about the existing bus stop at Northgate Plaza being located on the north side of the three lane driveway and Northgate residents having to cross lanes of traffic to access this. Josh explained that the bus stop currently sits on the north side of the existing driveway and that the developer has proposed moving the bus swop to—tlie north an�c providing apull-off lane for the us.josh repoled-tha—t the — - ---- city does not feel that a pull-off lane for the bus is necessary. Neighbors feel the bus stop should be relocated to the south side of the Northgate driveway. The developer and design team will bring this idea to the city. 13. A neighbor representing Northgate Plaza would like to see a privacy fence placed along the property line separating the proposed development from Northgate Plaza. 14. Most of the neighbors were in agreement that they would like to see a stoplight placed at 10`1' Street and 11'h Avenue to help with traffic control and help to slow down traffic on 11`h Avenue. There were varying opinions as to whether or not all of the proposed development traffic should be routed to 11`h Ave or if some should be routed to 10'h Avenue as currently planned. 15. Josh ended the meeting thanking everyone for attending and summarizing the next • steps which include the Planning Commission meeting on October 1 oth and the City Council meeting on November 5'h. Josh asked neighbors to feel free to call him with any questions they may have. Recorded by: YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES Jason Woodhouse,AIA Jw/jh YCA#10073 Washington Village • g g Neighborhood Meeting Monday, September 24,2007 6:30 PM Washington School—Media Center SIGN IN SHEET NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER 2. 3. S 4. �� &L �y 6. 7. 8. 9. /� {fl ~ 10. 11. �P.+vNI S G�rM by 12. 13. Av U 14. 15. hJL— 17. �A �O [cl n-61-1 D ICA i • MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 10, 2007 CPZC MEETING • MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION • 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100 ROCHESTER MN 55904 Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held on Wednesday, October 10, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN. Members Present: Mr. Jesse Wallace, Vice Chair; Mr. Vince Barry; Mr. Robert Haeussinger; Mr. John McGuine; Mr. Gerald Pestka; Ms. Kathryn Moe; Mr. James Williams; and Mr. Kenneth Navitsky Members Absent: Ms. Leslie Rivas, Chair Staff Present: Mr. John Harford and Ms. Jennifer Garness Other City Staff Present: Ms. Pat Alfredson, City Attorney; Mr. Bob Nowicki, City Council; and Mr. Bruce Snyder, City Council SET ORDER OF AGENDA: Ms. Moe moved to approve the agenda, as written. Mr. Navitsky seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. McGuine made a motion to approve the following consent items. Ms. Moe seconded the motion. • September 26, 2007 minutes The motion.carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Type III, Phase II Restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Joe Weis —Weis Development Corp to be known as Washington Village. The applicant proposes to construct two apartment buildings on the former Bachman site. One apartment building would contain 67 units while the other would contain 51 units, both buildings would have underground parking as well as surface parking. Access to development would be off of 10th Ave NW , 11th Ave NW and from the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development. The property is located north of the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development, south of Washington School and along the east side of 11th Avenue NW. Mr. John Harford presented the staff report, dated October 5, 2007 and memorandum dated October 10, 2007, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. • Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: October 10,2007 Mr. Harford explained that the Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council makes the formal decision on the application (November 5, 2007). He explained that the applicant has asked that the City Council waive the final plan. Mr. McGuine asked what the purpose would be to connect both parking lots and not using it as a passing between 101h Avenue and 11thAvenue. Mr. Harford stated that the traffic on the street would stay at a residential level. It would be well under 1200 trips per day. The average at present is 300 trips per day. Connecting them would provide an opportunity for the individuals living there to not drive through the neighborhood east ---- - of the--project. -- ------ -- f Mr. Haeussinger expressed concern with traffic on 11th Avenue NW. Mr. Harford stated that City Public Works did not have any concerns with present traffic on 11th Avenue NW. Mr. Harford stated that the property is zoned B-4. He explained that a strip mail could be placed there as a staff review process and that the use would incur more intense traffic than what is proposed. Discussion ensued regarding current and possible traffic patterns on 111h Avenue NW. • Mr. Wallace asked what the process would be and if there were any revisions to staff's recommendation. Mr. Harford stated that the Commission could continue the request if they felt that they need information on the site plan or they can make a recommendation stating that those items be revised prior to scheduling for the City Council. The applicant, Mr. Joe Weis residing at 11761 Sandy Point Lane NE, Rochester MN 55906, addressed the Commission. He stated that Weis Development has been in the affordable housing business since 1971. In 1971, they built Rochester Square. Over the next 10 years, they did about 15 other projects in WI, MN, and IA. He stated that those projects were designed for very low income families. The proposed development is for middle income families. Mr. Weis explained that he is working with Minnesota Housing to reserve 4 units for homeless individuals. He explained that"homeless" did not mean taking individuals from the street. He explained that households experiencing long term homelessness includes individuals, unaccompanied youth, and families with children, lacking a permanent place to live continuously for 1 year or more or at least 4 times in the past 3 years. Mr. Weis stated that the proposed development would be similar to Georgetown Homes and Village on Third. Mr. Weis stated Paramark Management would manage the housing project and that Dave Wiesner was present to answer any questions. • The applicant's representative, Josh Johnson with Yaggy Colby Associates, Inc. (717 Third Ave SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He stated that Ron Krinebring (Weis Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: October 10,2007 Development), Jason Woodhouse (Architect from Yaggy Colby Associates), and Dave Wiesner (Paramark Management), were present to answer questions. Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant met with Rochester Public Works regarding access with Northgate Plaza Senior Housing. He explained that 11`h Avenue is an urban arterial roadway and could handle 12000 trips. He explained that the City is in the process of upgrading it from 7`h Street to 10"' Street and they are considering taking it from 10"' Street and reconstructing it to handle 4 lanes of traffic all the way to 14`h Street. Mr. Johnson explained that the applicant did not want to put the connection between the parking lots as people could use it as a shortcut between 10`h and 11`h Avenue. Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant believes this site is appropriate for this use due to the architectural features, good proximity to a bus stop, green space, bike trails, walking distance to Barlow Plaza, St. Mary's, Mayo, and there is a playground within the development. Mr. Johnson stated that 75 percent of units are workforce housing. These are individuals that make approximately $20,000-40,000 a year. Mr. Johnson summarized that the applicant is in agreement with the staff-recommended findings and conditions with the exception of connecting the parking lots. Mr. Johnson showed a revised sidewalk layout. He stated that they will make a connection between the two units. Mr. Wallace asked why they designed the access to the underground parking of the east building from the south instead of the north. Mr. Johnson responded that there is a grade difference. Mr. Wallace expressed concern with possible accidents in the parking lot due to the length of the lot. Mr. Pat Devney, residing at 1017 6`h Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. He questioned how architectural features have merit with the people's backgrounds living there. He expressed concern with proposed development being so close to an elementary school. He stated that parking on the north side of the building would be close to home plate at the ball field. Mr. Devney expressed concern with increased traffic loads in front of the elementary school. Mr. Devney stated that income levels were explained as individuals working as a chamber maid at the Kahler Hotel to a new teacher. He stated that this is too wide a range of income and that he does not think that individuals would go to St. Mary's but to Olmsted Medical for their medical needs. Mr. Devney stated that the developer has indicated that the vast majority of tenants would be families with children. Further, some of these families were noted as'being abused. He stated • that there are statistics that state that there is an increased level of violence associated with Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: October 10,2007 • people from abused families. Therefore, he questioned why a development with abused families and/or families with violent backgrounds could be near an elementary school. Mr. Devney asked that the final plan not be waived. Mr. Devney stated that he called the state housing and tax allocation department and asked if they have received any information about this proposed project and any potential tax allocation dollars for it. He also asked if they received any information about the proximity of the project to a school. ------- -Mr.Devney indicated that-the-school-is-at-ca pa city and-q-uestioned-why housing-would-be-------- ---- I placed by a school at capacity as the children would need to be bussed. He indicated that it is a choice school. He explained possible difficulties with those living in the development organizing their children to get to schooling and then spending enough time with them (which could result in social problems). He stated that he called the Rochester School District and indicated that they were not aware that there could be bussing needs there. Mr. Devney stated that he called the Rochester Police Department to learn about crime rate changes near similar housing projects. However, there wasn't adequate time to gather such data. He indicated that, if the crime rate increased after the Salvation Army or Village on Third was developed, then a similar project should not be placed near a school. Mr. Devney stated that, if the presumption is that the residents would be St. Mary's employees, the developer should contact St. Mary's housing and ask for a commitment that they will place a certain amount of employees into their housing. Otherwise, the presumption of employment from St. Mary's is inaccurate. He stated that housing needs to be placed where jobs are available for those individuals. Mr. Devney stated that, to make Rochester a more vibrant downtown, there needs to be encouragement to those owning/maintaining homes instead of placing low income housing there. Mr. Lyle Plumhoff, residing at 1010 91h Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission: He expressed concern about residential uses being allowed on land zoned B-4. He stated that appropriate uses would be shops, offices, drug store, senior citizens center, or a school expansion. Mr. Plumhoff stated that Northgate Plaza Senior Housing has 150 tenants whereas this proposal would have 450. He stated that the density does not fit in with the existing neighborhood. He expressed concern with the building height, as most buildings in the neighborhood are 2 stories. Mr. Plumhoff expressed concern with additional traffic, especially considering the elementary school nearby. He referenced a traffic impact report for 10t'Avenue NW which was located in the meeting packet. He further expressed concern with the building overflowing onto property they do not outright own. He stated that the project was too large for the size of the property. • Mr. Plumhoff stated that the additional afternoon and evening traffic would affect the neighborhood and that it would violate Section 62.708(1)(d)(3) of the Ordinance. Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: October 10,2007 Ms. Lisa Peterson, residing at 912 10th Street NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the • Commission. She stated that she was present to represent East Side Neighborhood Association. She explained that they are concerned about additional traffic, parking, and compatibility. She stated that the scale of the development is not compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Ms. Peterson stated that the use of the property should not create additional traffic for night/evening traffic on neighborhood streets. She indicated that there are approximately 50 children that live in the area that would be affected by the traffic. She stated that she thought all traffic should be directed to 11th Avenue NW and not have access from 10th Avenue NW. Ms. Peterson stated that visitor parking was not addressed by the developer. She questioned how many visitors would be there at any given time considering the size of the building. She expressed concern with visitor parking spilling over into the neighborhood streets. Ms. Peterson asked where the additional 8 spillover parking spots would be located on site, as required by staff's conditions of approval listed in the meeting packet. Ms. Peterson stated that the neighborhood's concerns should be addressed prior to the development moving forward. Mr. Danny Dutka, residing at 623 11th Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904, addressed the Commission. He stated that he works at Northgate Plaza Senior Housing, but that he was present to speak on his own behalf and not Northgate Plaza Senior Housing's. He stated that he was not in favor of sharing an access with the new development. It is already difficult to take a left hand turn out of the site. He stated that most of the tenants not drive vehicles that live there. However, he expressed concern for those that do with the increased traffic. Mr. Dutka stated that, if the development was constructed, the bus stop would have to be moved. He stated that the tenants of Northgate Plaza Senior Housing use the bus stop and he hoped that it would not be moved farther away. Mr. Dutka expressed concern with individuals storing junk in their balconies and conversing with individuals on the residential street from the balcony. Therefore, the balconies are not an amenity to the development as suggested by the developer. Mr. Jim Nosbush, residing at 140 2"d St NE, Oronoco MN 55960, addressed the Commission. He stated that he owned a duplex near the proposed development. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Plumhoff, Ms. Peterson, and Mr. Dutka. The development is too large for the amount of acreage. He expressed concern that the development will bring crime into the neighborhood. He stated that a crime study should be prepared for this site. He indicated that a crime study should be prepared before any building in Rochester is developed. Mr. Nosbush explained that there was controversy when Northgate Plaza Senior Housing was developed. The developer at that time indicated that there was no other place to put it. At this time, he stated that there are many areas in Rochester that the proposed development can be put (ex. by Fleet Farm). Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: October 10,2007 • Mr. Nosbush stated that low income families with children deserve a place with a lawn to live in and not an apartment building. He suggested that the developer build lower income homes for these individuals instead of apartments. Mr. Nosbush expressed concern of where snow removal would occur. If snow is put in parking spaces, there will not be adequate visitor parking. He indicated that Northgate Plaza Senior Housing only has 7 parking spots for visitors. At present, there are individuals that park in front of the duplex he owns. Mr. Nosbush expressed concern with the Fire Department being able to get into the parking lots. -_---- tie questioned-if-the-Fire-Marshall had commented-on-the-project----- --- ---------------- ---- 1' Mr. Nosbush reiterated that this is "way too much building for way too little land". No crime statement has been done and it needs to be done on every building in the future. He stated that "There is plentiful land and areas to build uplifting homes for our poor. We do not need or want to crowd them and force them to live in a crime ridden, prostitution, and drug breeding trap like you are proposing here for Mr. Joe Weis." He indicated that Mr. Weis just wants to take his money and go. Ms. Karen Thompson, residing at 1015 111h Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. She questioned if the City of Rochester would be giving Mr. Weis the land as they did with Rivers Edge. She expressed concern with property values going down and additional air pollution occurring. She suggested that a community center, community pool, or an office • complex be placed there instead of the proposed development due to the lot size. Ms. Jennifer Mann, residing at 715 361h Street SW, Rochester MN 55902, addressed the Commission. She stated that she took offense that the proposed project would be better placed by Fleet Farm South. She stated that it was her belief that developers should stop building these types of housing as it does not help the lower income population. She explained that it does create crime. She stated that affordable housing by First Homes needs to be disbursed throughout Rochester to make family living. Ms. Shirley Hiebel, residing at 914 12th Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. She stated that she agreed with the previous neighborhood speakers. She stated that St. Pius and John Marshall were also located nearby which brings many busses on the street and pedestrians walking. She also indicated that there are three churches in the neighborhood which have children's activities in the evenings and weekends. Mr. Dave Wiesner, from the management company, addressed the Commission. He stated that he could provide a list of representatives to call at MHFA as Mr. Weis has done an exceptional job building affordable housing throughout Minneapolis and Rochester. Mr. Wiesner stated that he took offense with people stating that the development would be crime ridden. As a management company, they take pride in being a local company and having local ownership. Mr. Wiesner stated that this would not be "crime ridden housing". The individuals that would live • in the proposed development would be similar to people that live at Village on Third. These individuals are seniors, residents from Mayo, students with families, etc. He explained that the Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: October 10,2007 management company conducts a thorough credit, criminal, and landlord reference history on • each applicant. If the applicant doesn't meet their criteria, they are unable to rent from them. Mr. Wiesner stated that the management company has a strong reputation with the Police Department and Building Safety Department. Mr. Wiesner stated that he has a kindergartener that goes to Washington Elementary and is not concerned about them going there after the building is developed. He indicated that his wife attended a PTA meeting and discussed the proposed project. The PTA does not have any concerns with the proposed building. Mr. Wiesner stated that the minimum income for a 1 bedroom unit is $19,800 with a maximum for a single person being $31,200. They do not allow an individual to use more than 35 percent of their income for rent, as recommended by Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Mr. Wiesner asked that the Commission make a decision based on the zoning regulations. Mr. Dick Wilker, residing at 1203 10th Street NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. He stated that the proposed development is too large for the small piece of land it would be put on. He expressed concern that the proposed development would affect the value of his home. He further expressed concern about additional traffic on 11th Avenue and the safety of children already in the neighborhood. Mr. Nick Berglund, residing at 1207 10th Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the additional traffic the development would create • as well as noise. He stated that he has talked with members of the PTA and that they already have concerns about present traffic. The applicant, Mr. Joe Weis, addressed the Commission. He stated that the property was not given to them by the City of Rochester. He explained that they did not own Rivers Edge, but were hired as the contractor to build it. He indicated that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority owned River's Edge. Mr. Weis stated that he had a study from Harvard University refuting that property owner's home values depreciate near this type of development in a neighborhood. There is no credible evidence that it decreased property values. Mr. Weis stated that comments were made about a large number of units being placed on a small site. He explained that, when developing, you want to keep people close to downtown so they aren't living in the suburbs and clogging the highways. Mr. Weis summarized that the proposed development meets the requirements of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Mr. Lyke Plumhoff, residing at 1010 9th Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. He reiterated that the proposed development expands into the neighborhood and beyond its own property lines. He stated that the development should be scaled back so that it fits on its own property and exits and enters from its own property. • With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Wallace closed the public hearing. Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes . Hearing Date: October 10,2007 is . . Mr. Navitsky stated that the larger picture is whether the development is too large for the parcel of land. He questioned if traffic could be handled without overburdening the neighborhood. . Ms. Moe stated that it was commendable that a large amount of people from the neighborhood were present to express their viewpoints. She explained that it is a difficult situation because often communities resist having both change and any increase in traffic in our neighborhoods (ex. Federal Medical Center, Dorothy Day House). She explained that the Commission must measure the proposed development with the requirements of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. It is her opinion that they do meet the -------------requirements-However,—she-stated-thTat-shewas-opposed towaiving#traf nal-plan. is Ms. Moe stated that there were concerns expressed by the neighborhood residents that should be addressed by the City Council meeting. Ms. Moe:moved to recommend'app... !I of Type Ill "Phase II.Restncted Development R2007-028CUP by,Joe Weis Weis Development Corp to be known as Washington . Village with the staff-recommended findings and 9 conditions striking number 1. stating 'that the:parking lots interconnect) Mr.'McGuine seconded the'"motion The motion .. carried 6-2, with Mr Navitsky and Mr. Wallace:;voting nay CONDITIONS . • 1 The site plan shall be revised to provide internal sidewalks between the bwldings and providing a connection o the existing sidewalks along 10th 1 &A th Ave ues NW . 2 P1. rior to the issuance of any development permits for the site, the'applicant shall have . received a-Revocable Permit from th C .V::for the private parking and landscaping within the unimproved right of-way of 10th Street NW If a Revocable Permit is not . issued.by the City the applicant shall revise the site plan to accommodate parking and landscaping within the applicant's property antl have the Planning Commission : and City Council review the proposal again through public hearings 3 .Prior to the issuance of any development permits for the site, the applicant shall have ,a executed Access Agreement with the property';to the south granting access through . the No. g.a Plaza Senor Housing property to erne he development 4. ;Grading and drainage plan approval`is required prior to development, as well!as, . ... payment of any applicable Storm Water Management Area Charge for any increase in impervious surface 5. The condition of Pedestrian Facilities along the frontages of the Property will be reviewed by:Public.Works staff and any rieetled ,repairs and/or panel replacement . ,shall be completed concurrent`wtth construction of this building project 6. There is a reconstruction project proposea for the 11th Ave NW frontage of this 'Property The Owner should coordinate any utility teryices';needed for its protect • with the City. The Owner will be subject to,a development Oarge,Y assessment,for' its proportional.share of the reconstruction costs, and:exec_ution of an Assessment/Contribution:Agreement is required: . Page 9 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: October 10,2007 7 . All existing`waterservices toahe site, not used, hall be tlisconnectetl at the"main per the requirements bf RPU Water Division: &: The applicant shall coordinate any utility services needed for the`project with and.City and dedicate the necessary public utility easements for the serves required for the; :buildings, 9. The bus stop shelter being displaced shall be relocated to a location approved by the Rochester Public Works:Department Mr Haeussinger,moved to recommentl to the_City Council thatthe Final Plan not be waived. Ms Moe seconded the motion The motion id&714 711,with Mr` Navitsky voting 'nay.. �s Y v w Amendment to R00219GDP by RMN Land Development, LLC known as S rin ok Va The applicant is proposing to amend the approved GDP b movon a access off of Co mercial Drive SW further to the south and relocating the area de nated as public arklan o an area east of the existing water tower. The propertV is.46cated north of the former Fle Farm Store and south of Southtown 2nd and Southto4n Heights Subdivisions. Mr. John Harford pr ented the staff report, dated October 1 07, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at a Rochester-Olmsted Planning D artment. Mr. Harford stated that a 35 of"no build zone" buff as designed along the north and south property line. He explained tha his was approve a previous version of the GDP. Ms. Moe asked who was responsible main n that area. Mr. Harford responded the individual pro owners. The applicant's representative, Mar elch fro -Cubed (14070 Hwy 52 SE, Chatfield MN 55923), addressed the Commissi . He explaine at there are now two owners of the property in the general develop nt plan (GDP). Th ommercial portion has been sold. He stated that the applicant's wer in agreement with the s -recommended findings and conditions. He reiterated th the 35 foot buffer interpreta is that nothing be built in that area. It is not intended as n environmental easement. Ms. Jennifer Mann, re ding at 715 36th Street SW, Rochester M 5902, addressed the Commission. She ted that it was her understanding that the City ouncil approved a "no disturb zone". Mr. Haeussin r clarified that the Commission recommended to the City Co cil that it be a "no disturb zone" ut that the final action by the City Council reflect it as a "no buil one". Mr. Ha rf d explained that Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Laws were signed b he Coun ' President on December 26, 2006 stating a "no build zone". • • MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 5, 2007 COUNCIL MEETING • • ' Regular Meeting No. 26 — November 5, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES • Councilmember Means said that she was ready to move ahead with the position. The need for such a position has been a void within the City. This would not be a duplication of effort with Olmsted County. It is not a new position but an existing position within the City. Councilmember Nowicki noted that he would be in favor of waiting until after the Tri- Government Meeting to talk about the position. --� Mayor Brede said he would favor delaying at this time. On even numbered years, he will be the chair of the Emergency Management Commission. He said that although he is in favor of the position, he is not comfortable with how it is put into the organizational chart of the Emergency Operations Center. Mayor Brede noted that Dave Carr was the weather coordinator for the Operations Center and many other people had to be hired to complete other projects. Other things were unable to be done. The City has grown significantly since that time and there are things that we are now required to do and are currently being addressed by Police Chief Peterson. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. D-29 Terry Adkins, City Attorney, asked the Council to approve the agreement with • Untied Laboratories subject to the City Attorney's review and approval of the contract's terms and conditions due to several provisions in the contract that he is not in agreement with. Councilmembers Snyder moved, Nowicki seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 546- 07 approving the agreement with Untied Laboratories for the Rochester Fire Department to cover UL services for Inspection and Testing of Aerial Devices and Pumpers for compliance with NFPA 1911 and/or NFPA 1932. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. E-1 A Hearing on Final Plat# R2007-014PLAT by Northbrook, LLC to be known as River Center Plaza. The applicant is proposing to re-plat the land that the Northbrook Shopping Center is located on into 2 lots. The property is located along the west of the North Broadway and East of the Zumbro River and is known as the Northbrook Shopping Center. The applicant requested that the item be withdrawn. A Hearing on Type III, Phase II Restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Joe Weis-Weis Development Corp to be known as Washington Village. The applicant proposes to construct two apartment buildings on the former Bachman site. One apartment building would contain 67 units while the other would contain 51 units, both buildings would have underground parking as well as surface parking. Access • to development would be off of 10th Ave NW, 11th Ave NW and from the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development. The property is located north of the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development, south of Washington School and along the east side of 11 th Avenue NW. Regular Meeting No. 26 - November 5, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES • The applicant requested that the hearing be continued to the November 19, 2007, meeting. Wishing to be heard was Pat Devney, 1017 Sixth Avenue N.W. Mr. Devney referred to the City of Rochester Zoning and Land Development Manual, Ordinance No. 2785 and the Standards for Conditional Use, Section 61.146 require ---- --- - - eight conditions-be-net: I-le-said-he-believes-that-the-Weis-project-doesnot-meet - - I those eight requirements. Condition #1 -Vehicle Loading, Unloading and Parking - During the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting both Weis Company and the Commission agreed that there was insufficient parking for the project and insufficient visitor parking which would mean that parking would flow into the residential neighborhood. Parking would be funneled onto Tenth Street past Washington School and into the neighborhood causing a safety hazard to the children at the school. Condition #2 - Intensive Location, Operation or Height of Structures Detrimental to Neighborhood, Public Sewers or Similar Public Facilities - The project is proposed to provide housing for 450 people. The additional traffic generated by this development will cause undue burden in that area. Condition #3 - Provision for Unsightly Buffer Yards or Landscaping Does Not Provide Adequate Protection to Neighboring Properties from Detrimental Features of Project-The • plans for buffering provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission simply refer to a few trees, there are no provisions for snow removal and no parking lot ambient lighting provided that does not disturb the neighborhood. Condition #5- Provisions for UnDue Lighting As A Hazard for Motorists - Bright parking lot lights are going to diminish the values of properties where the light shines. Condition #8 - Proposed CUP Does Not Comply With All the Standards Applicable to Permitted Uses Within the Underlying Zoning District- Currently the land is zoned R-4 which presently does not meet zoning requirements and, therefore, needs the conditional use permit. Mr. Devney stated again the project does not meet the criteria for Standards for Conditional Use and the application should be rejected by the Council. If the project does go forward, the School District will need to bus students to Elton Hills School which is already at capacity. The result could be rezoning of grades into different schools. Mr. Devney noted that it does not seem feasible to have workforce housing in an area where there are no jobs. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Mr. Weis said that the tenants would be Mayo Clinic residents who would be moving into six-figure jobs one year later. Mayo Clinic residents receive a stipend in addition to their rental costs; hence, they would not be higher salaried one year later. Mr. Weis also mentioned that primary tenants would be young teachers; entry-level teachers' salaries exceed the limit to live in this type of project. The statement had also been made that the tenants would be Kahler Hotel chamber maids. People working in this field are the longest-lived, tenured employees at the hotels. They are already established in their living quarters. Mr. Devney said that by comparing crime data in comparably-situated properties, there is a significance deviation in the crime data for this neighborhood, • within a one mile area; i.e., misdemeanors as compared to felony crimes. The project would have a negative impact on property values. Mr. Devney said that in light of these facts and statements, it would be unwise and imprudent for the Council to consider the project. Regular Meeting No. 26 — November 5, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES • Wishing to be heard was Lyle Plumhoff, 1010 Ninth Avenue N.W., 1 % blocks from the proposed project. He asked how property could be rezoned from a B-4 into a densely residential housing zone. The property could be used for shops, drugstores, the senior center, or Washington School expansion. The students who would live in the proposed development would not be able to go to Washington School but would be bused elsewhere. There would be 450 people in 118 units on just under two acres of property. The proposed building would not fit with the neighborhood because of the height of the structure. A lower profile building would need to be considered. Mr. Plumhoff said that one of the requirements of Section 62.708(1)(b)3 of the Zoning Ordinance, is that a project not add nighttime traffic to the residential streets in the area. This project does that. Mr. Plumhoff said that the residents feel that the project should be rejected and should be scaled and scoped to fit the neighborhood. He noted that when they talked with school district representatives, they had no input into the project. Northgate Plaza hasn't been contacted. Mr. Plumhoff noted that the project is so big it grows onto its neighbors' properties. John Harford, Planning Department, noted that one of the referral agencies is the School District but there had been no comments from them. Wishing to be heard was Dave Ellingson, 1107 Ninth Street N.W. He said that the • traffic is so heavy in the morning, he has a hard time getting onto 11th Avenue. The traffic from a project so large would cause a big problem. Although the project would be a good setting for people working at Mayo, the income level, $31,000, is far below what those employees are paid. There are no other job opportunities in this area for 450 people. Mr. Ellingson said it would be nice to have some project develop the site but perhaps it could be a higher class apartment building on a smaller scale. He noted that no councilmember would want the project in their neighborhood and he doesn't want it in his either. Wishing to be heard was Pat Devney, 1017 Sixth Avenue N.W. Mr. Devney said that he failed to mention that before this project can proceed, an easement would need to be obtained for what is now designated as a City street provided that the land would then be vacated to the School District. The School District would then have to make the land available, if they chose to do so, to the developer or offer it for sale. Mr. Devney said that the Post Bulletin had an article referring to the possible use of speed bumps on 11th Avenue to slow the traffic. On one hand the Cit would be looking at slowing traffic and on the other hand putting more traffic on 11 X Avenue if the project is approved. Wishing to be heard was Karen Thompson, 1015 111h Avenue N.W. Ms. Thompson noted that she would be living across from the proposed project and would have one of the backyards where all the lights would shine into. She said that project is too big if it has to use and/or overflow into other people's properties. Ms. Thompson said that increasing the size of Washington School would be a • better use of the land. Wishing to be heard was Pat Ryan, 1793 36th Avenue S.E. Mr. Ryan said that he doesn't live in the neighborhood so it doesn't directly affect him, however, he is.an Regular Meeting No. 26 — November 5, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES • apartment owner. He said that in the past few years there have been a number of apartment buildings built, Weis Builders just built a building downtown and received government funding for the project. Apartment rentals in Rochester have been going through a slow period for the past four or five years. Is this development needed? The rental market is finally starting to pick up some momentum but suddenly the big corporations are starting to build large multi-apartment dwellings ---- -------- with-tax-monies that-mak-L-it-almost-virtually-impossible-forsmaileilandiords nnot— receiving tax dollars, to compete. It becomes an unfair competition. He said that his costs for City fees and other miscellaneous costs are close to $100,000 on a 30-unit apartment complex. Wishing to be heard was Pat Devney, 1017 Sixth Avenue N.W. He spoke with the funding people at the State of Minnesota but failed to ask if MHFA funding comes from the State General Fund. If it does, the citizens, in an indirect way, are paying for the project. If so, it takes away funding to support schools and other activities in Rochester. Mr. Devney said that they do not take exception on the need for workforce housing on a moral issue but do take exception to the process of not being in code. • Wishing to be heard was Lyle Plumhoff, 1010 Ninth Avenue N.W. Mr. Plumhoff said that in two apartment complexes in town, there are 46 vacancies of Section 42 housing. Is there really a need for this project? Terry Spaeth, Administration, said that the Federal Tax Credit Program under the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department provides an allocation of tax credits to the State of Minnesota. The State in turn appropriates the tax credits out to various jurisdictions in the State including the City of Rochester. Terry Adkins, City Attorney, said that the issue at the public hearing is whether or not this project satisfies the ordinance criteria. It is up to the Council, at the end of the public hearing on November 19th, to determine if the criteria has been met or not and make their decision based on the findings. Wishing to be heard was Dick Wilker, 1203 Tenth Street N.W. Mr. Wilker indicated that he lives one block west of the proposed project. He asked that each Councilmember visit the area and see the heavy traffic from 3:00 to 5:00 PM on 11tn Avenue N.W. Wishing to be heard was Lyle Plumhoff, 1010 Ninth Avenue N.W. He said that there was a survey completed on the streets prior to the school opening. He noted that there was no one in attendance representing the 150 tenants of Northgate Plaza. He said that those residents are concerned about getting to the bus stop if this project is completed. • Councilmembers Marcoux moved, Means seconded, to continue the public hearing on Type III, Phase II Restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Joe Weis—Weis Development Corp to be known as Washington Village to November 19, 2007. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. R Regular Meeting No. 26 — November 5, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES • Pledge of Allegiance Wishing to be heard during the Open Comment Period was Pat Devney, 1017 Sixth Avenue N.W. Mr. Devney asked that the Council take public comment on the hearing on the Weis Development Corp project to be known as Washington Village that was scheduled for this council meeting. He said that information was not discussed at the Planning and Zoning Meeting about recommendations to the City Council, specifically, standards for conditional use criteria for that project. Mr. Devney said that he believes that there are four or five criteria that are not met by the project. He said that if the Council would listen to the concerns, and Terry Adkins, City Attorney, provides a legal opinion to the Council, time and expenses could be saved by the City, Planning and Zoning and the School District in the future. B-1 President Dennis Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with the following members present: Councilmembers Pat Carr, Ed Hruska, Marcia Marcoux, Sandra Means, Bob Nowicki, Bruce Snyder. Absent: None. Also Present: Mayor Ardell F. Brede. C-1 Stacey Antes, 3248 Lakeridge Drive N.W., representing the Manorwood • Association, spoke on the problems that the neighborhood has had with landslides due to improper grading and site stabilization. A slide presentation was shown during Ms. Antes' presentation. Ms. Antes noted that there are 88 homes in the Association within an average price of$200,000 to $300,000. In 1996 the grading plan was approved by the City and the developer was cited in 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007 for failure to comply with the grading plan. She said that the City has failed to enforce the grading plan requirement. The City employed a consultant to conduct a recent exploration and review of the landslide areas. The report stated that some of the areas had fill depths of 41 feet, compaction densities were below standards, there were serious grading discrepancies and there was inadequate water management on the hill. Ms. Antes stated that the Association members do not feel that re-engineering the hill is the responsibility of the residents. They are asking that the City take the lead in making the developer or those responsible put forth the financial resources necessary to solve the problem. Ms. Antes noted that the residents are living in fear that their homes will be sliding down the hills and that they will not be able to recover from such a financial loss. The greatest fear is the safety of the residents and their families. Councilmember Marcoux was thanked for all the time she has spent with the residents in the Manorwood neighborhood working on the problem. President Hanson asked the City Administrator to set up a meeting with President Hanson, Councilmember Marcoux, the City Attorney, Public Works and the City Administrator to look at resolving the issue. • D-1 Councilmembers Marcoux moved, Nowicki seconded, to approve the following consent agenda items. D-1-29 Approved the minutes of the October 1, 15 and 29, 2007, Council meetings. Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes • Hearing Date: February 27,2008 REVISED Type III, Phase II Restricted Development R2007-028CUP by Joe Weis Weis Development Corp to be known as Washington Village The applicant proposes to construct two apartment buildings on the former Bachman site One apartment building would contain 67 units while the other would contain 51 units, both buildings would have underground parking as well as surface parking. Access to development would be off of 10th Ave NW, 11th Ave NW and from the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development The property is located north of the Northgate Plaza Senior Housing development south of Washington School and along the east side of 11th Ave NW The revised plan identifies a public alley being constructed in the undeveloped right-of-way of 10th Street NW -- r- ohn Harfordpresented the staff repo ated-Fe r�ary 20, 2008, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Harford stated that the applicant submitted a revised plan dated February 27, 2008. This revised plan was handed out prior to the beginning of the meeting. In order to meet the parking requirements, they need to redesign the surface parking on the site. Mr. Harford stated that language to condition number 2 needed to be added stating "recorded agreement" as well as executed agreement. Also, condition number 10 should be added and state "An easement will be needed over the sidewalk south of the parking lot and the proposed 10th Street to allow for public use." • The applicant's representative, Josh Johnson from Yaggy Colby Associates (717 Third Ave SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. Mr. Johnson showed/compared the original plan with the revised plan submitted February 27, 2008. He stated that Joe Weis, Ron Krinebring, Dave Wiesner, and Dick Landwehr were also present. Mr. Johnson stated that the revised changes were in response to suggestions by planning staff and discussions with Public Works. Mr. Johnson stated that 11th Avenue is scheduled to be reconstructed this spring. He indicated that the overall density would be 48.9 units per acre (118 units on 2.4 acres). He explained that this density is consistent with the Northgate Senior Housing. The floor area ratio is 1.31. This is comparable to what is allowed in an R-4 zoning district for 4 to 6 floors of residential. He stated 181 parking spots are required for the development. The initial plan showed 185 parking spots. He stated that the revised plan shows 181 stalls on site and indicated there is a need for overflow/spillover parking, which can be accomplished by parking on public streets. By building the public alley, as shown on the revised plans, they would be able to provide 11 public stalls adjacent to the site. Mr. Johnson described the following amenities and design features that meet the criteria for a restricted development process: 1. architectural features a. balconies on all units in Washington East and almost all units on Washington West b. entrances into parking garage, off of 11 th Avenue, and main entrance on north side c. making use of residential materials to blend in with the neighborhood 2. site design a. incorporate green design features with energy efficiency uses and building up rather than outward to promote smart growth b. there will be a tot lot and playground facility on site Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 27,2008 c. landscaped space on site is 45 percent • d. trees will buffer streetscape and neighborhood (13 percent more green space than required in a similar development in the R-3 zoning district and 8 percent more than in an R-4 zoning district) 3. proximity to location of retail and school a. located on bus route (bus stop located south of site) b. neighborhood facilities: within Y2 mile of Washington Elementary and John Marshall High School, within Y2 mile to Barlow Plaza Shopping Center and Northgate Plaza, close proximity to St. Mary's Hospital, bike paths, Mayo Clinic Downtown, and three churches Mr. Johnson stated that the development provides a needed benefit to the community by providing workforce housing. He explained that Village on Third (69 units) is 95 percent full from opening date (September 2007). Mr. Johnson stated that the proposal is to construct a multi-family development. The site is currently zoned B-4. He explained that the restricted development process allows the applicant to have uses that are not typically allowed in the B-4 zoning district. He stated that the development would be workforce and market rate housing. There will be two phases. Phase I would be the larger"L" shaped building on the west that will have a total of 67 units. Those units would be used for workforce housing. The applicant is working with MHFA for financing those 67 units to provide affordable renting for the workforce (ex. support staff at Mayo, teachers, single parents, etc.) Mr. Johnson showed comparisons of Washington Village, Northgate Senior Plaza, and Village on • Third lot sizes, unit count, floor area ratio, density, green space, building height, approval process, and variances requested. Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant is in agreement with the staff-recommended conditions, with the exception of a 10 foot setback from right-of-way. Mr. Joe Weis (residing at 11761 Sandy Point Lane NE) addressed the Commission. He thanked the Commission for their dedication and indicated that he understood how it could be a "thankless" job at times. Mr. Weis apologized for how long he planned to speak before the Commission as he has never taken as much personal abuse and heard so many lies told to the press about the proposed project and he wants to be sure to straighten out the facts. Mr. Weis stated that it was his understanding that you don't necessarily have to meet all of the requirements when going through a restricted development process. Mr. Weis stated that, at the predevelopment meeting with City staff, it was indicated that the 10th street right-of-way could be used by the site through one of two options (revocable permit from the City or the property could be vacated to the school and he could purchase the property from the school). He indicated that he tried to purchase the land from the school district for two months but was turned down. Mr. Weis stated he has been assured by the City Attorney that the revised plan "meets all the legal • requirements". However, the final decision is made by the City Council. Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes • Hearing Date: February 27,2008 Mr. Weis stated that concern has been expressed about the safety of the school children and residents of the Northgate Senior Plaza. According to the PTA, 89 percent of the children ride a bus, 10 percent of the children have other transportation, and 1 percent of the children walk (4 children out of 359 children). Mr. Weis stated quoted studies from different sources discussing the need for workforce housing. He also gave handouts of myths about affordable housing. Mr. Weis quoted Ms. Moe's statement from the October 10, 2007 meeting: "She explained that it is a difficult situation because often communities resist having both change and any increase in traffic_.__ __ in our neighborhoods (ex. Federal Medical Center, Dorothy Day House). She explained that the Commission must measure the proposed development with the requirements of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual". Mr. Weis quoted Mr. Nosbush's statement from the October 10, 2007 meeting: "Mr. Nosbush reiterated that this is "way too much building for way too little land". No crime statement has been done and it needs to be done on every building in the future. He stated that "There is plentiful land and areas to build uplifting homes for our poor. We do not need or want to crowd them and force them to live in a crime ridden, prostitution, and drug breeding trap like you are proposing here for Mr. Joe Weis." He indicated that Mr. Weis just wants to take his money and go." Mr. Weis stated that Paramark Management has about 6,500 apartments in their portfolio and about 2,500 of them are either very low income or tax credit apartments like that being proposed. • Mr. Dave Wiesner, residingat 2214 58t" Street NW, Rochester MN 55901) of Paramark Management, addressed the Commission. He stated that, even though it is not pertinent information, he wanted to indicate the type of people that would in the proposed development. He explained that Paramark is a management company based in Rochester and the owners of the company live in Rochester. He explained that individual's occupations living-at Village on Third include immediate supervisor, desk supervisor, waitress, nurse, nanny, retired, waiter, caregiver, assembly, admissions, etc. Ms. Breanna Bly, residing at 2120 44th Street NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. She stated that she is the Chair of the Rochester School Board. She stated that the school district is not in objection to the proposed housing development. They are concerned with the vacation of the land that was originally owned by the school district and is used by Washington Elementary. She explained that the green space is used for gym class and that the John Marshall High School sports teams use it to run up and down the hill for endurance. Ms. Bly questioned how the vacated land could be used by a developer that would benefit only their business. She stated that a public street is not planned to use the vacated land. Therefore, the land should be given back to the school district instead of having a private business using it for their gain. Ms. Bly expressed concern with traffic in the proposed alley. • Ms. Bly stated that the school district has worked well with the City of Rochester in the past. Examples of this include the JOBZ zones, Bamber Valley easement, utility easement at John Adams, and allowed property behind Mayo High School to be used by the City. All of said properties are still maintained by the school district. Therefore, they would request to regain the 40 feet of property that belonged to them. Page 9 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 27,2008 Ms. Linda Stockwell, residing at 605 291h Street NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. She stated that she has been the Principal of Washington Elementary for 12 years and has seen a lot of changes and has lived comfortably with the adjacent commercial property to the south. She explained that there is a fence directly south of the baseball diamond and that the gym class uses the area between the fence and trees as a lap track. She indicated that the trees offer a safety buffer between the school property and adjacent commercial property. She expressed concern with playground equipment going into the alley. She further expressed concern with increasing traffic at the south end. She asked that the land continue to be used by the school district. Mr. Pat Devney, who owns property at 1017 6th Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. He stated that the City Attorney told Mr. Weis to discuss purchasing that land from the school district. He questioned how the City could give Mr. Weis the land for his development when the school district would not sell it to him. He indicated that the school district has been using that land for over 60 years. Mr. Devney expressed concern with snow removal for the alley proposed and whether it was really an "alley" or a "street" according to Code. Mr. Devney expressed concern that the traffic count requested was not completed during the school year but was done in August. Mr. Devney stated that the studies Mr. Weis referenced were over 18 years old and were not valid and stated that the studies referenced subsidized housing, which this development is not. He • stated that the Commission is being fed false information. Mr. Devney stated that Mr. Weis stated at the October 10, 2007 meeting that the tenants would be teachers, Mayo Clinic residents, and Kahler Hotel chambermaids. He indicated that he contacted these businesses and asked for their base wages and indicated that they exceed the amount to make them eligible for workforce housing. Therefore, tenants from the building would need to use transportation to get to their jobs. Mr. Devney stated that there is a 1 '/2 year waiting list for children to attend Washington Elementary. Therefore, children from the development would not necessarily attend that school and would need to be bussed. Mr. Devney stated that Mr. Weis provided him with a Harvard Study that he referred to at the October 10, 2007 City Planning & Zoning Commission meeting stating that there was not a negative impact on property values. He stated that nowhere in the study did it state that there would not be a decrease in home values. Mr. Devney stated that he spoke with representatives from the Police Department and explained that crime clusters exist near low income housing. He stated that he personally did not think grouping low income housing or workforce housing together adds dignity to anyone. They should spread people with economic challenges throughout the community so that they can benefit more effectively from the infrastructures spread throughout the city. He stated that he did not know of any city where a project has helped the community. There have been similar developments in • downtown Madison and there are many problems that the Commission could discuss with the City Council of Madison. Page 10 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes • Hearing Date: February 27,2008 Mr. Devney stated that land was originally zoned B-4 Commercial. The development would increase the population about 400 people. He stated that planning staff agreed that the project would increase the night and evening traffic on local residential streets. He stated that the traffic would violate the criteria for conditional use permits as stated in Section 62.708 paragraph 3 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Mr. Devney stated that Mr. Weis takes offense to individuals stating that the development would be crime ridden. He stated that he should take offense that it will be crime ridden. He personally thinks that it is the logical conclusion, based on crime clusters and the hard data available. He indicated that he does not mean this to be a personal attack. Mr. Devney stated that, on Friday, February 22, 2008, Mr. Lyle Plumhoff and another individual were outside Village on Third and were approached by a young lady asking for a "baggy". He indicated that she was not looking for a zip lock bag but something different. Mr. Devney stated that it is not an issue about housing but about poverty,job placement, and improving Section 8 funding. Mr. Devney asked that, if any of the Commissioners are in the construction business or do business with Mr. Weis, that those individuals excuse themselves from voting due to possible conflict of interest. • Mr. Bill Engle King, residing at 902 11th Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is a subsidized tenant due to health issues. He stated that Northgate Plaza is not a senior high-rise but has tenants from age 30 to 99. He expressed concern with safety of the shared driveway, the moving of the bus stop, and with creating the alley for parking. He stated that there are 151 apartments in Northgate Plaza and the development would takeaway two parking spots from them. He questioned where'the proposed development tenants and visitors would park. He stated that the development should be downsized to fit the property. Mr. Lyle Plumhoff, residing at 1010 9"'Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. He gave the following definitions, as stated in the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. ALLEY: A public right of way which affords a secondary means of vehicular access to abutting property. STREET: A strip of land used or intended to be used solely for the passage or travel of motor vehicles, including roadway, boulevard, medians, islands and facilities for pedestrians or other non motorized vehicles. Mr. Plumhoff stated that the definitions indicate that the proposed "alley" is really a "street". Mr. Plumhoff stated that he is not opposed to the development but asking that the building be scaled back to fit the site. He made the following comparisons: • • Northgate Plaza — 180 residents on 3.1 acres with a density of 60 people per acre • Washington Elementary— 350 students and staff on 6 acres with a density of 70 people per acre Page 11 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 27,2008 • Proposed development—480 tenants on 2.4 acres with a density of 200 people per acre • Ms. Lisa Peterson, residing at 912 10th Street NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. She stated that she agreed with the statements made by the school district representatives. She stated that the vacation area is used daily by the students and that the public also uses that area when at the ball field. She stated that she was not opposed to the development of the property or about the workforce housing, only with the safety of the students from Washington Elementary and from the surrounding neighborhoods as they use the playground as well. She stated that she was opposed to a "street" or an "alley". Ms. Linda Bradford, residing at 305 36th Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. She stated that there is a need for affordable housing in Rochester. She stated that many people work two jobs and pay over 50 percent of their income for apartments. She indicated that there are some slum landlords and places so there is a need for clean, affordable apartments where there is stability. Mr. Dick Landwehr, residing at 1115 Fox Croft Lane SW, Rochester MN 55902, addressed the Commission. He stated that he wanted to respond to some of the comments made by the public. He stated that tenants of Village on Third are: Mayo (14 units), Manpower (6 units), retired (5 units), school district (5 units), restaurants (9 units), and services, caregivers, media supervisors, personal attendants, daycare, chemical technicians, truck drivers, home health aid, receptionist, and sale associate Mr. Landwehr stated that, with regard to safety, the fence is shown 27 feet from the baseball field. • Also, city staff requested to have the major access point be on 11th Avenue and line up with 10th Street on the other side. One of the current accesses to the site would be eliminated. Mr. Landwehr stated that the alley parking would benefit the public that go to the athletic field. The benefit for the school for the alley parking would be for the people that use the athletic field. Mr. Landwehr stated that a second traffic study was done during the school year at the request of the City of Rochester. Mr. Landwehr stated that it was suggested by residents of the neighborhood to move the bus stop from its current location. Mr. James Nosbush, residing at 140 2Id St NE, Oronoco MN �5960, addressed the Commission. He stated that he owns property near the proposed development. He stated that he coached Rochester youth baseball and indicated that the vacated area in question is used as a warm-up area and suggested that the school district be allowed to keep the property. Mr. Ron Kreinbring, residing at 3633 Garnet Ridge Dr NE, Rochester MN 55906, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has lived in Rochester for 40 years and have worked for Joe Weis for 40 years. He stated that he has participated in events at the ball field at Washington Elementary. He stated that there is enough warm-up area for the children without the vacated area. Mr. Fred Daly, residing at 216 75th Street NW, Rochester MN 55901, addressed the Commission. • He stated that he is a school board member. He stated that the developer is taking another's land Page 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes • Hearing Date: February 27,2008 for parking rather than changing his footprint of his proposed building. He suggested that instead of taking the land just changing his plans and fitting the development on their property. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Wallace closed the public hearing. Mr. Williams stated that there is a need for this type of housing. However, he was concerned about parking. He agreed that perpendicular parking could lead to accidents. He stated that he would like to see another design with safer parking and eliminate the alley parking. _____ Mr. Barry stated that he liked the alley and public right-of-way_. He stated_that the parking on the < . I north side is compressed. Ms. Moe commented that the project is a marvelous project and that she cannot be convinced that there isn't a need for affordable housing in this community. However, she was persuaded by comments made by Mr. Plumhoff and thinks the developer needs to change the design a little and compromise. In summary, she supported the project but in a revised format. Mr. Harford stated that, if a motion to approve the request was made, the Commission would need to address the criteria listed under Section 62.712 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Therefore, if the motion is to approve the parking along the extension of 10`h Street, the Commission would need to provide some findings. • Ms. Moe asked that if the Commission doesn't think that the proposed plan fits with Section 62.712 subsection 2 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, one option would be to recommend approval with a requirement to revise the plan. Or does it mean that if they recommend approval they also have to support a finding that it doesn't cause substantial detriment. Mr. Harford stated that the question posed was how to address it as it is a restricted development. The Commission needs to approve something similar to a variance for the parking separation from the public street by making a finding to Section 62.712 subsection 2 in the restricted development process. Mr. Harford stated that the Commission could 1) move to approve the conditional use permit or 2) ask the applicant to provide a revised site plan showing how they meet the parking regulations at the Commission's next meeting. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Barry about parking. Mr. Barry stated that he was going to move that on to the City Council. Mr. Harford stated that the recommended conditions states that they must comply with that provision for setbacks. The applicant will need to figure out how to comply with the condition prior to the City Council meeting. Mr. Barry agreed with Mr. Harford. • Mr Barry moved to recommend approval of therevised site plan submitted February 27, 2008 for REVISED Type;lll,"Phase II Restricted Development;R2007 028CUP by Joe;Weis x( Weis:DevelopmenfCoi•pto be',knovvn as,;Washington'Village.v+rith;the staff recortimentled-` Page 13 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 27,2008 fintlin sand conditions as revisetl.below� O 9 1 Mr McGwne secontled the motion The � % motion carrietl 6 I,with'Mr Wallace votin }� p g na CONDITIONS I'I 7 'k m` Y `E F 't Tj f § 1 3 4 t k # 4 Q �, 1 The site plan shallybe revised � � ` , A. ;a " s z r aTf aivc��Y�n Al Ai ��.J �, x * ,M 4 s Pr6viding a pubic sidewalk along the north sItle of the alley connecting ,: '10Avenue NW and 1°1th Avenue NW s Z • Parkin off of the alley shall com I with Section 63 455 (H)'of the LDM g py &I k , —1 ,� z' :. ', F r k " 'r �r.. a k. • Identify the location for the relocated bus stop along 116 'Avenue NW ;„ 2 Prior to the issuance of any development permits for the site the azl pplicant shall have an executed and recorded Access Agreement with the property to the south granting access through the Northgate Plaza Senior'Housing p�opeity to seine the development. `` ` S Grading and drainage plan approval is regwred prior to development,;as well as, payment of-any applicable Storm Water Management Area'Charge fior:any increase�n mpen►ious'surface Y 3 .� S r 4 The condition of Pedestrian Facilities along the frontages of>the',Propertywill be rev..ewed by Public Works staff and any neetled repairs andlor panel replacement's shall tie completed concurrent with construction of this building protect t s �` 7 F � zR SIThere is a reconstruction project proposed for',the 11"' Ave NW frontage of this k x Property The Owner shoultl coordinate any utilitysernces needed for its project With the Char TheFOwner wit[be'subject to a development charge 7 assessment,M for its proportional share of the reconstruction'costs` and execution of an 1 s I�ssessmentlContribution Agreement is required a t } 8 a J. F t Y '2 i _ F S 6 All exist-rig watersernces to`the site, not used, shall be disconnected'at the main . per the requirements of RPU Yl/ater Division f ..e a .,g.. c� k a 3.' x a y„ i s a :" 7 The applicant shall coordinate any utility services neetled for the project with the City and dedicate the necessary public utility easements for theaerves required for the buildings �& s a a, : r .r r : a 8 Execution ofa City Owner contract and dedication of a11" "I" "ble public easements''is required prior to construction ofany public �mprouements to serve3 1;the protect', x �� �� x ` 9 Plans and profile sheets shall be rovided to the Ci deta l-- the co struction o g n fa , the roadway located within the right ofi way prior to final p aw,approvalI �_ .� S l Y 10,An easementwill beneeded over the sidewalksouth of the parking lot and the ' ,, ". proposed 1 Oth Street.to allow for ublic use ' 00.P �' ' Page 14 :.. City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes • Hearing Date: February 27,2008 Ms. Moe questioned if the above motion was that the Commission recommends approval if the parking is revised. Mr. McGuine responded yes. Mr. Harford stated that conceptually the Commission is stating that in order to fully comply the Commission wants to see the parking taken care of by reducing the number of units or figure out a slightly different site plan (third bullet of condition 1). CONTINUED ITEMS: Text Amendment#06-03 initiated by the Rochester City Planning and Zoning Commiss' n to amend sections of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual that re u e signs. Nctions 60.113 60.200 62.411-412 and several subsections of Section 63. -228 are inclu in the amendment. Mr. John Harfo presented the staff report, dated February 8, 2008, to the Corn sion. The staff report is on file at a Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. Discussion ensued re rding 1 sign credit versus 2 sign credits being us for electronic signage. Mr. McGuine asked if buss ss signs.are at an 8 second display ti • Mr. Harford responded yes. Mr. McGuine questioned if it could changed to 2 seco as it seems to be the industry standard. Discussion ensued regarding a 2 and 8 s nd dis y time. Mr. McGuine asked if the Commission would b amenable to changing the auxiliary signs from 8 seconds to 2 seconds. Mr. Harford stated that the Commission uld recom nd it. Ms. Moe stated that she did not agr with Mr. McGuine. Mr. Barry agreed with Ms. Moe. Mr. McGuine doesn't agree th requiring 2 sign credits instead of Ms. Moe explained the tential of the new sign seems to work with 2 s n credits. Mr. Barry agreed wi Mr. McGuine. Ms Moe move to:recommend approval of Text AmendmentV06 03, mina d`by the, Rochester C Plannmg:and Zon�ngComrvssion based on staff s recomm dation and • wrth a prov ion that "Two sign credits shall be required fora new advertism sign that is aa¢dynami display''.. Mr:-Dallman seconded the motion = m Mµ Postbulletin.com: Planners rec-. -rend housing project - Thu, Feb 28, 2r-'.-.R Page 1 of 3 OAI ;y r4..z • .,.n,.+Yrt ;+ri"ix is I f. �blildi1^1'. ':•ya�.v.'.'�''�i•',ix '��.v�, e.ri sr:..r�d:isµw, �� _x��'�F=A Local flews Planners recommend housing project : 2/28/2008 8:35:40 AM Aft, Aft (0) Comments � Mort;. By Jeffrey Pieters NU unt; Post-Bulletin, Rochester MN -sk Your neilr-bo s about their tR x AY'agent. An apartment complex proposal primarily for low- RE/MAX of Rochester income workers is a step closer to Rochester City e ie:i, Ave ray Council approval. The city's Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 '* on Wednesdayto recommend ""� ``approval of developer Joe Weis' Washington Village project. His proposal is If! Home 4. for the former Bachman's Nursery site, 910 11th Ave. N.W. Seardi I 1 gym. �r. The project consists of two four-story apartment I� P buildings with 118 apartments. Four-fifths of the apartments would be reserved for people earning about $12 an hour or less. _... .... _. _ . ...... .. _.. _.._...... _ ... . "There is a need for work force housing," Weis said. _ • During a two-hour public hearing, neighbors arguedIT I - that Weis' plan is too big and would bring too many new residents and too much traffic to an established neighborhood. "Joe needs to downsize," said Bill Engelking, who lives in an adjacent high-rise, Northgate apartments. a "He's lapping over onto Northgate. He's lapping over onto the school property." Weis' proposal, though meeting nearly every pertinent city code, does rely on neighboring properties to work. It would share a south access with Northgate. The Northgate entrance would be _ widened to three lanes and a bus shelter moved to Pr,,,,iniu„rn ne)m .••...a µ � ra u Afk h„AnnnlP upgrade the entrance for Washington Village. A north entrance to Weis' project relies on a 62-year- old right-of-way easement across the Washington Elementary School property. Weis proposes building a road over the easement, which connects a broken segment of 10th Street, on the boundary between his property and the school. Weis would also line that road with parking for the apartment buildings. Most of the site's parking, however, would be provided in an underground garage. The Rochester school district objects to the road and sought to have the right-of-way abandoned. The planning commission recommended denial of the ranuPst. http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=330701 2/28/2008 Postbulletin.com: Planners rec• -rend housing project - Thu,Feb 28, 21 9 Page 2 of 3 is "This is our property," said school board Chairwoman Breanna Bly. Bly noted that over the years, the school board has supported city requests for several easements and JOBZ tax abatements. "All we ask back ... Is 40 feet of property that belongs to us," Bly said. Weis' representatives described the proposal as typical of other apartment buildings built in similar locations. It would meet city requirements for parking and would have more than the required amount of landscaping, measured in terms of the percentage of the lot covered in green. Crime concerns Would the development also mean more crime, one neighbor asked? "Crime clusters do exist around lower-income living," said Pat Devney. "Does that mean it will happen around here? I don't know." Weis and his representatives bristled at the suggestion. "Nothing could be further from the truth," said Dave Wiesner, who oversees management of 6,500 apartments, including 2,500 units for low-income and • tax-subsidized tenants on behalf of Paramark Real Estate Services. "These are people who are in the community," Wiesner said. "Different life circumstances put people in situations where they need work force housing." For some, it's that they have a low-paying or entry- level job. Others have gone through divorce and need to find an affordable place to live, Wiesner said. Tenants at the Village on Third -- another Weis development- include waitresses, maids and manufacturing workers, and those are the kinds of people who would live at Washington Village, Weis said. Village on Third has a waiting list of more than 80 names, he said. The Washington Village proposal is expected to be on the March 17 city council agenda. Builders would be ready to break ground within a month of council approval, Weis said. It would take about eight months to build. • Do you want a profile picture? Your own blog?To share your photos? Head over to RochesterMN.com and start exploring everything your profile can do. You may need to re-login. http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=330701 2/28/2008 Postbulletin.com: Planners rec' -rend housing project -Thu,Feb 28, 2r'-? Page 3 of 3 (0) Comments Please Login or Register to leave a comment. • See an inappropriate comment? Report it to our staff • http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=330701 2/28/2008 Petition to Reject the Proposed Development of the old Bach n-P y by Weis Development �1v1 petition summery;and ` .. We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of the East-side Washington School neighborhood. W ar y QMENT bacltgf, —, proposed development of the old Bachman property for the following reasons: Not currently within code. k �`4 'rx,Y ": 3 Additional traffic to residential neighborhood, especially evenings and nights due to the proposed 101h Ave NW exit. r= F k Very high density as compared to surrounding neighborhood and area. Insufficient residential/visitor parking will cause overflow into surrounding East-side neighborhood. Hazard to neighborhood children and Washington students due to increased traffic volume and parking issues. Hazard to seniors due to increased traffic volume and parking issues. Provides free public land to Weis Development. Makes revocable permit become a de facto, permanent permit/variance. P , Will cause the school district to rewrite boundaries. *Detailed explanation available upon request. A high density housing development will increase crime, decrease property values. �., AcPopiioned:for We, the undersigned, urge our leaders to act now to reject this proposed development. Printed dam ommen e: Sign�tur Address v%r 11 n� l_l. �. 7 -� A,1 1 -Z I 1 j2UCL►c°SfPI� / S �c�� orl n_,VrV W4_A4., C7 O co a cnr a N (I • r' C"i (I IfCl. uj 4 U. 1 1 I• � 1 k � I - I fa, Cl V \ Petition to Reject the Proposed Development of the old Bachman-Pro by Weis Development - �,,,��,T Pet�ti�n'summary, nd� We, the undersigned, pre concerned citizens of the East-side Washington School neighborhood. We are opposed to the backgotindR <" t ' proposed development of the old Bachman property for the following reasons: Not currently within code, Additional traffic to residential neighborhood, especially evenings and nights due to the proposed 10th Ave NW exit. S 1' F ,I Very high density as compared to surrounding neighborhood and area. Insufficient residential/visitor parking will cause overflow into surrounding East-side neighborhood. Hazard to neighborhood children and Washington students due to increased traffic volume and parking issues. Hazard to seniors due to increased traffic volume and parking issues. N. Provides free public land to Weis Development. r 7 ,�xf Makes revocable permit become a de facto, permanent permit/variance. Will cause the school district to rewrite boundaries. *Detailed explanation available upon request. * zy, ?; A high density housing development will increase crime,decrease property values. ActiOW,peiitic�netl for'x We, the undersigned, urge our leaders to act now to reject this proposed development. j 'P�i•i a,;.>=,,.. .,,.r�n+,u k.a ;�r ..�,s e.: t< :� � t 'J E ai Ikea �'�KJ ' �■y�■ t��c4 e r6N\-, , OLY�iL, Ili 2--4 0 -,. AAW �Ow, si­ /Vvt) tw. ,W�C I qlS ..; hJ W�%Ack i1-c,F ;c JA tlA,1 EXC7 4 4, - �-- ;56 h ej'�CASs �, �� �I � I �lC�� Zcc�- w t r. k.,"u 7 i ., ,f,' .�Addir� .� r morn .���.� c�ire�y/G Rkh sfC ld r. .:„ To � ✓n6, h4 6G Y v� �ti ti �r ,4rC 13rci�-t�•o� C, oSS IZe�! b �tili� �''.�V'. h/vrr� ' r c r` pQ �zr ��.r,j 0�— '�Ija0 C( /O to A � Nw, IT r l V� � � � ��� . l�C Gt_l art �-Idt, J �l Ole 07 cA�,u," 5 (o�g`t�� 7 17 in J 1 e D A,,)-e VJ, a-�•e�_ h 6 N RIB �1�1cJZ lJ \ Og to T tiof CA boa V2 07 cl AaNv\ SA nu'D e e.,r -fi�aF �� 9 a e I Y . ��•L 1I- _v AALf ie.I� ! . `1' ' ' /Cr' �f�t �� JitJ �f'Tc4 ��- �- i Petition to Reject the Proposed Development of the old Bach 7 by Weis Development PEAR 1 2 2003 Petition scimmary� rid , } We,the undersigned, are concerned citizens of the East-side Washington School neighborhood. e ENT_ proposed development of the old Bachman property for the following reasons: Not currently within code. Additional traffic to residential neighborhood, especially evenings and nights duejto the proposed 10th Ave NW exit. *2`k,}A a � Very high density as compared to surrounding neighborhood and area. Insufficient residential/visitor parking will cause overflow into surrounding East-side neighborhood. ` Hazard to neighborhood children and Washington students due to increased traffic volume and parking issues. 31 t C Tw`Y t k ry y • Hazard to seniors due to increased traffic volume and parking issues. Provides free public land to Weis Development. Makes revocable permit become a de facto permanent permit/variance. y+ �"`l } jt j ;` ` Will cause the school district to rewrite boundaries. *Detailed explanation available upon request. A high density housing development will increase crime, decrease property values. NR L T 1 >o We, the undersigned, urge our leaders to act now to reject this proposed developttt�rtt: :,::y :::,{r r._-,#� '1 :.,., ...- �+" '� :..k,3 s=.t: . } a ,:.5 ,,. ,i•;- �' L xy a-- -te.;.. '7. JC)(-16q Al&ly(e, /Lg-&11 16)&7 /&7 Ski PJ Ld "0 AL Kc 4/,?7l f, J f i i., t i i Petition to Reject the Proposed Development of the old Bach a_n. Property by Weis Development >Petitio�ttCrmg dry nrS �M We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of the East-side Washington School neighborhood. We are opposed to the adkrodrs �,F j� proposed development of the old.Bachman property for the following reasons: 5.7 • Not currently within code. �" `` ' ' { k Additional traffic to residential neighborhood, especially evenings ni hts due to the ro osed 10 Ave NW exit. M _ a F'' =s h�, 9 P Y 9 9 p P to Very high density as compared to surrounding neighborhood and area. # f ri 3 a ,k, _ ! EY . Insufficient residential/visitor parking will cause overflow into surrounding East-side neighborhood. Hazard to neighborhood children and Washington students due to increased traffic volume and parking issues. \ � ,� r; r �,11" ` �t . Hazard to seniors due to increased traffic volume and parking issues. ��, x r y • Provides free public land to Weis Development. fR: , E k , £ Makes revocable permit become a de facto, permanent permit/variance. ' F,Niu " t % Will cause the school district to rewrite boundaries. *Detailed explanation available upon request. high density housing development will increase crime, decrease property values. Actiogxptftitsie�`fgn ` We, the undersigned,',urge our leaders to act now to reject this proposed development. r. tea..-• .. <,. �-.5,. .-e.r... k F... . ., ..,.,r Y,.. Y. .i,. ,.. F.. ,..s:: `- f �`'.. r `„ti i � ..._ . a s 1 "►y� ., !:`.ter(� �,.....,t cY "' , .:..:x:i 1�j/y,. y N% �+ {y i`"t.:$+ ,T•$. s u.. S L !,.� t fa■�ypl�l �"4. a."i4y .5,4 Y,..n? t :.!.t �P4G.; %. Printed:IVam� , _ , w ,, �//yy11af1UCH F . ".5 a� Y� 1 •. N Nd' R: `�--.. _ _ ..•,. . w.:xev R�. a:„%>;,"t..,.. 7.. ..,-xs.� M.x -k. .,a - tRek#,c..M F.�K.u>ae s.r ,wi_,€, a 4 'S' r H- �.c� r?'' f�3 U�'� v u 5eo-t-t /sr, .emu ` �s � �' 5�, ecul Q —9 OR cr O u ......_._.. a _.—.. ____ In r- LE Zo 1 � G v _ 1 60 -%% t (7c, K t� �j J 5 tom: lu 5p( n L6 4t --2 ` 3 ZIA r�= 4 AN° a n •a., bs In ,w La ` ~ r r l 1 52 ci C7 rR •_ • ��R 1 22003 • .:, ,i. < } fib „tH 1 ii 7..{w � xix L, y'"ji ':t'�'.' 4 •t bsf 'xt v� u � �7 0 r rate_ i L 1 Jul (-d tyj 4, 2qkyq, 7 M l cJ CI`e elo eipat e � n DW4 Rtk I *Ale No 3 &LI-A2cti'L-s5 D/b Z'�- U� Al /W,��16 9adz Q167 C�A vi 1 N&�Vaq qoq � �j�1t,J ►�laG - -- - - - --- -- - - -- -- - -- ItECE1V FMAQ 9 ?nnR I ePr�n e4Name, . ,; Si nature > �4 _= Address :�.�.-:,a x�t>im» ,; ..a...�... •.,•., fi d.-,�,.7,..� ...,, _,�;°.a l :.�x�,.�' ,# KA km Ir ROCHESTER-OLMSTED l gyp' %NING DEPART-1-AENT 0/Z7 Pete.- le7/.- I lu G v s - AlI .�' 1 g � � eve ci J S'1 5-}- ti,o Z4& r r £� \b \ �« �z \AJ . ?� \� �\ �± } � \ 12\ �\ � �§ . »� �\ � � �\ �\ � �{ � �} Izz � 7� \CL t I y 1 Below details complaints,concerns and objects to this project by East-side Washington School residents. • This petition is against the development of the old Bachman property by Weis Development.All citations are excerpts from the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. 1. Not zoned"residential" Variance to existing code/zoning required, Currently not legal action(contrary to section 62.708,item d) 2. Traffic concerns Contrary to section 62.708 zoning ordinance by creating additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets by the addition of 486 potential residents of this proposed development. 3. Children safety,noise Contrary to section 62.708,item I,screening and buffering,privacy of residents, impact of traffic circulation and parking(insufficient),safety hazards to neighborhood and school children,potential safety hazard to -- seniors(Northgate Plaza). 4. Density Contrary to section 62.708,item k,general compatibility contrary to general density will change character of surrounding neighborhood. S. Parking Contrary to section 62.708,item i,does not include adequate off-street parking as confirmed by Planning and Zoning by Weis Development. 6. Free Public Land to Weis Development Rochester Develooment Guide Booklet IV B Easement/vacation of public land.It is unethical to give private land to a for profit business with no payment or open bidding for said land. 7. De facto permit will become variance to code Rochester Development Guide Booklet 7 IV C Revocable Permit will be by nature and substance become a de facto permanent variance to code and permit since unwinding apartment egresses to city streets will not reasonably be done(e.g....refusing citizen access to their residence). • 8. Crime Review of similarly situated properties show increases of crime compared to current neighborhood levels. The supporting data from Rochester Police Department is available upon request 9. Schools Can be expected to cause school boundaries to be redrawn and thereby creating disruption to students and families potentially splitting siblings up between different elementary schools(per conversation with School District, Mr. Fogarty). 10. Lower Property Values Increased crime creates negative neighborhood perception and thus lowered property values,notwithstanding danger to neighborhood. This is supported by both anecdotally and by hard data. 11.Fails common sense test This project fails basic common sense.For example: • Tenant children will be bused to Elton Hills or farther.Washington Elementary is a choice school. • There is no nearby job/work base. • This project reduces personal dignity. • Lumping low income individuals and families into multi-family housing increases negative perception ._. which have been driven by similar developments in larger urban settings(Chicago, New York)and their subsequent factual consequences. Funding would be better spent by providing opportunities f r-, low-income families to raise their children in a home rather than a dense housing proiect • Current low income housing exists(vacancies within project parameters)and is available in -' marketplace within the same"rental"cost ranges as this project.Furthermore,using existing housing; would avoid reallocation of infrastructure resources,as these tenants would be absorbed throughout i t Rochester's neighborhoods. 3 r� N � 12.Falls Civic Responsiveness CM I Failure to reject this project runs contrary to the democratic process placing a for profit business ahead of local .: , CM neighborhood objections. , j E- I-A At/ 001 1 0�- ki- --bu--a:i�_2 1 j r. ........... i f VI0 �a A/ n? ear.eSS I� .ti W g12 -0 4clw 4�-Ut/ to �L 7 s• Petition to Reject the Proposed Development of the old Bachman Property. By Weis Development as Shown on Plans We, the undersign, are concerned citizens of Northgate Plaza LTD. We have some o z concerns with the proposed development of the old Bachman property for the follo reason. L:a ce o Provides free public land to Weis Development along IOth St NW. fU C 0 _.. _. Rd - - sz. Shared driveway with ATorthgate Plaza LTD, Main driveway being to close to ;' underground parking exit. Ir L Moving Bus Stop, does not show where new bus stop will be located. Fire Equipment getting to all areas of the buildings. • -T 1 wz L it w \\ w z X 7 - U CY _ I �j V OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 102 STATE CAPITOL LORI SWANSON February 29, 2008 ST.PAUL,MN 55155 • ATTORNEY GENERAL TELEPHONE:(651)296-6196 Mr. Bill Engelking DECEIVED 902 11 th Avenue NW#302 Rochester,MN 55901 t 1 2 2098 Dear Mr. Engelking: RcCH==T -cL.'ST=D 1 thank you for your correspondence dated February 6, 2008. You-indicate that-a city is considering selling-or-giving-away a 40-foot easement"to an —` adjoining landowner. You note that the city has a 40-foot platted street but that the street was never opened. The street is apparently located at the edge of a plat adjoining only one lot located within that plat. You note that the city is interested in selling or giving the easement to an adjoining owner whose lot is located outside of the plat which contains the street. You ask for any feedback I can give you on this topic. First, when a public street is vacated, the landowners on either side of the street generally receive title to the centerline of the street. However, when a street is located at the edge of a plat but entirely within one plat, title reverts to the lot owners within the same plat and abutting the street. See in Re: Petition of Building D, 502 N.W. 2d 406, 408 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (copy enclosed). • Second I am not aware of an Minnesota law which would permit a city to sell or give Y p Y away a platted street, or transfer it in any manner except through a vacation process. Because this is a complicated area of law, however, and because this Office is not familiar with all the facts of the situation, and this Office is not authorized to provide legal advice to citizens, you may want to discuss this issue with a private attorney. If you cannot identify an attorney to advise you, the Minnesota State Bar Association's Attorney Referral Service is available on the Internet at w1-1-w.mnfindalawyer.com. If you do not have Internet access, it may be available at your nearest public library. if you select an attorney through the referral service, you should ask about any initial consultation fee since the fees vary. I thank you again for your correspondence. Sincerely, LORI SWANSON Attorney General Enc.: Petition of Building D, 502 NW 2d 406, 408 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) A&#1958389-v 1/3 8 944 0/1S Facsimile:(651)297-4193-TTY:(651)297-7206-Toll Free Lines:(800)657-3787(Voice),(800)366-4812(TTY)-www.ag.state.mn.us Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity s �,m OtPrinted on 507o recycled paper(157o post consumer content) RECEIVED ' (Cite as: SOZ N.W.2d 406) H gin between two plats, but e�ttlic3�rdhin�iteS�aD, • Petition of Building D,Inc. reverted to owner of Minn.App.,1993. was within the same plat as the street. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. [2[Boundaries 59,C:-48(1) In the Matter of the PETITION OF BUILDING D, INC.,Building E,Inc.and Building N,Inc.,for 59 Boundaries Certain Relief in Connection with Certificate of 59I1 Evidence, Ascertainment, and Establish- Title N. 171977. ment No.C8-93-5. 59k48 Recognition and Acquiescence 59k48(l)k In General.Most Cited Cases July 6, 1993. Disputed boundary between two pieces of property Review Denied Aug.24, 1993. may be established under doctrine of practical loca- tion of boundaries by recognition and acquiescence Owner of lot on north side of vacated street peti- on part of parties and their predecessors; effect of tioned for order establishing title in it to entire dis- finding practical location is in many respects simil- puted part of vacated street adjoining lot. The Dis- ar to acquiring title by adverse possession. trict Court, St. Louis County, David S. Bouschor, J., found that owner of lot on south side of vacated [3[Records 326 E:-9(13.1) street owned one half of disputed part of vacated street since boundary had been established under 326 Records doctrine of practical location at center of vacated 3261 In General street. Owner of lot on north side appealed. The 326k9 Registration of Titles to Land Court of Appeals, Kalitowski, J., held that doctrine 326k9(13.1) k. Matters Affecting Re- of practical location of boundaries did not apply to gistered Title.Most Cited Cases vacated street which was registered property since (Formerly 326k9(131/4)) no claim was made that certificate of title was am- Though in limited circumstances doctrine of prac- biguous and no dispute existed as to location of tical location of boundaries may be applied to re- • boundaries at time property was registered. gistered property, application of doctrine to vacated street was prohibited under statute precluding ac- Reversed. quisition of title to registered property by prescrip- tion or adverse possession, where adjoining lots West Headnotes were registered, there was no claim that certificate of title was ambiguous, and no dispute existed as to 11]Municipal Corporations 268 4ID-657(7) location of boundaries at time adjoining lot in the same plat was registered, since street was then still 268 Municipal Corporations a public easement.M.S.A.§508.02. 268XI Use and Regulation of Public Places, Property,and Works *406Syllabus by the Court 268XI(A)Streets and Other Public Ways 268k657Vacation or Abandonment The doctrine of practical location of boundaries 268k657(7) k. Operation and Effect. does not apply to registered property absent an am- Most Cited Cases biguous certificate of title or a dispute as to the loc- Upon vacation of street, city's easement was extin- ation of boundaries at the time the property was re- guished and title to dedicated street located at mar- gistered. ©2008 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. • https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs—WLW 8.02&destination=atp&prft=H... 2/20/2008 Fetition EIVED Daniel D. Maddy, Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith & cessor, filed a jointadat2 an Frederick, P.A., Duluth, for appellant Building N, Street. The petition vacated s et Inc. would "be used by yonF1hCetp n Charles H. Andresen, Bryan N. Anderson, Crass- of the use of their rese� tar, weller, Magie, Andresen, Haag & Paciotti, P.A., areas and will facilitate the use of said property." In Duluth,for respondent Arrowhead Elec.,Inc. December 1961, the vacation petition was granted by the Duluth City Council. Because the vacation Considered and decided by KLAPHAKE, P.J., and of Buchanan Street was not filed, it did not appear KALITOWSKI and SCHULTZ,FN`JJ. on appellant's certificate of title until 1990. Shortly after Buchanan Street was vacated, re- FN* Retired judge of the district court, spondent and one of appellant's predecessors erec- serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of ted a fence and gate perpendicular to the street. Appeals by appointment pursuant to While appellant's predecessors removed their part Minn.Const:art.VI,§10. - of- the--_fence _from ihe—northerly one-half of- j Buchanan Street approximately one year later, re- spondent retained its part of the fence on the south- OPINION erly one-half until the early 1980s. Respondent also created five parking spaces perpendicular to its KALITOWSKI,Judge. building and used a part of the vacated street for Building N, Inc. appeals from a judgment employee parking. entered by the district court determining that under the doctrine of practical location of boundaries by In 1989, appellant purchased Lots 1 and 2. In acquiescence respondent Arrowhead Electric, Inc. pertinent part, the warranty deed conveys the fol- was the owner of the southerly one-half of vacated lowing property to appellant Buchanan Street. [t]hat part of vacated Buchanan Street in COW- ELL'S ADDITION TO DULUTH, abutting upon Lot 2, LAKE AVENUE, COWELUS ADDITION • *407 FACTS TO DULUTH, Lot 1, MINNESOTA AVENUE, COWELL'S ADDITION TO DULUTH, and Lot Appellant is the owner of Lot 2, Lake Avenue, 299,MINNESOTA AVENUE,UPPER DULUTH. Cowell's Addition to Duluth, and Lot 1, Minnesota Avenue, Cowell's Addition. The lots are adjoining, Appellant's certificate of title gives it title to with Lot 2 lying to the east of Lot 1. Lot 1 was re- Lot 2 "according to the plat thereof on file and of gistered in 1910 and Lot 2 was registered in 1923. record in the office of the Register of Deeds." Buchanan Street runs along the southern boundaries of Lots 1 and 2 and was dedicated in 1856. In April 1991, appellant and other parties not involved in this appeal filed a petition subsequent Respondent is the owner of the easterly 88 feet to initial registration requesting, among other of Lot 300, Lake Avenue, Upper Duluth. Adjoining things, an order establishing title in favor of appel- Lot 300 on the west is Lot 299, Minnesota Avenue, lant to vacated Buchanan Street and directing the Upper Duluth. Lot 300 lies to the south of Lot 2 Registrar of Titles to issue a new certificate of title and Buchanan Street runs along the northern to that effect. By order filed October 30, 1991, the boundary of Lot 300. The disputed part of district court granted appellant the relief requested, Buchanan Street lies between Lot 300 and Lot 2. except that relating to the part of vacated Buchanan Street lying between Lot 2 and Lot 300. In 1961, the owners of Lots 1, 2, 299, and 300, who included respondent and appellants. prede- 0 2008 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. • https://Aveb2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLW 8.02&destination=atp&prft=H... 2/20/2008 The parties thereafter stipulated.and agreed to here, the owners of the properties within the plat refer the matter to the district court. Appellant and abutting the street own the entire street. Edge- claimed title to all of vacated Buchanan Street be- water Cottage Assn v. Watson, 387 N.W.2d 216, • cause the street was taken entirely from Cowell's 218 (Minn.App.1986). Thus, when Buchanan Addition plat. Respondent claimed title to the Street was vacated in 1961, the City's easement southerly one-half of disputed Buchanan Street un- was extinguished and the land occupied by the der two alternative theories: practical location of street reverted to appellants predecessors, who boundaries by acquiescence or practical location of owned Lots 1 and 2,Cowell's Addition.See id. boundaries by estoppel. The district court con- sidered the matter on the parties' written submis- [2] Respondent claims title to the southerly sions. one-half of disputed Buchanan Street under the doctrine of practical location of boundaries. A dis- The district court found that (1) appellant and puted boundary between two pieces of property its predecessors "treated the center line of the va- may be established under this doctrine by recogni- cated street as the boundary line for some 29 tion and acquiescence on the part of the parties and —} years;" (2) respondent's use of the disputed prop- their predecessors. Engquist v. Tfiryes, 243 Minn. erty was not contested until 1991; (3) since vaca- 502, 506, 68 N.W.2d 412, 416 (1955). The effect of tion of the street in 1961, respondent has had ex- finding a practical location is in many respects, clusive control over the disputed property; and (4) similar to acquiring title by adverse possession. Id. appellant's predecessors and respondent at 507,68 N.W.2d at 417. "understood that upon vacation of Buchanan Street, each would become the owner of 30 feet of the (3) By statute, title to registered property may street abutting their respective properties." Based not be gained by adverse possession or prescription. on these findings,the district court concluded: Minn.Stat. § 508.02 (1992). Nevertheless, the doc- That the boundary between the two pieces of trine of practical location has been applied in some property has-been established by the acquiescence instances to determine boundaries to registered of the parties under the doctrine of practical loca- property. In Moore v. Henricksen, 282 Minn. 509, tion, and *408 that said boundary is the center of 515-16, 165 N.W.2d 209, 215 (1968) and Min- the vacated Buchanan Street neapolis c& St. E. Ry. a Ellsworth, 237 Minn. 439, 444-45, 54 N.W.2d 800, 804 (1952), the supreme • This appeal followed entry of judgment. court allowed application of the doctrine when the original registration proceeding did not determine the boundary lines and the basis for the boundary ISSUE dispute existed at the time of the original registra- tion proceeding. In In re Zahradka, 472 N.W.2d Did the district court err in applying the doc- 153, 155-56 (Minn.App.1991), pet. for rev. denied trine of practical location of boundaries by acquies- (Minn. Aug. 29, 1991), this court applied the doc- cence to this case? trine of practical location to resolve a conflict between two certificates of title which could be read to include the same property. ANALYSIS In Konantz v. Stein, 283 Minn. 33, 36, 167 [I Appellant claims title to all of vacated N.W.2d 1, 4 (1969), the supreme court indicated Buchanan Street. Upon vacation, title to a dedic- that once title is registered, it is impossible to there- ated street does not necessarily vest in all abutting after acquire title to the registered land by holding landowners. When a street is located at the margin adversely to the registered owner. If, however, title between two plats, but entirely within one plat, as RECEIVED VAIN I a 200Q ©2008 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Work R�Cri-- r �STR'CLMjT�D V, -1_ https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLW 8.02&destination=atp&prft=H... 2/20/2008 is obtained prior to the registration proceeding • through adverse possession or practical location ofC�1�'�)� a boundary line, then the registration proceedings cannot extinguish that interest.Id. These cases illustrate that, in limited circum- MAR 1 2 2008 stances, the doctrine of practical location of bound- ROCHEST=n-CLYSTED cries may be applied to registered property. P . N� However, in this case there is no claim that the cer- tificate of title is ambiguous. Nor did respondent or its predecessors claim title to the disputed part of Buchanan Street prior to the time Lot 2 was re- gistered in 1923. At that time, Buchanan Street was still a public easement. The basis for the dispute in this case did not arise until-1961, when Buchanan Street was vacated and its title reverted to appel- lant's predecessors as the owners of Lots 1 and 2. We conclude respondent's claim to one-half of the disputed part of Buchanan Street is prohibited under Minn.Stat. § 508.02 ("No title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or by.adverse pos- session."). Under the undisputed facts of this case, the doctrine of practical location of boundaries does not apply. • DECISION The judgment of the district court is reversed. Appellant is entitled to have the disputed part'of Buchanan Street added to *409 the legal description on its certificate of title. Reversed. Minn.App.,1993. Petition of Building D,Inc. 502 N.W.2d 406 END OF DOCUMENT ©2008 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. • https:Hweb2.westl aw.cam/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLW 8.02&destination=atp&prft=H... 2/20/2008