Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1/4/1999_Annual (2)
CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING NO. 1 JANUARY 4, 1999 ANNUAL MEETING 7:00 P.M. PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS D) HEARINGS (3-14) 1) Continued Hearing/Final Plat to be Known as Windsor Heights CIC --(15-44) 2) Type III, Phase 11 Zoning District Amendment by David T. Bishop to Rezone Approx. 3.34 Acres of the R-1 to the R-1 x District (45-82) 3) Site Planning Permit by Bouquet Builders to 1) Amend General Development Plan #129 Currently Known as the Mohn GDP; and 2) Variance Request to Exceed the Density and Number of Units Per `.. Lineal Footage within the Shoreland Overlay District (83-90) 4) Zoning District Amendment by Bouquet Builders to Rezone Approx. 28.4 Acres from R-1 to R-2 District/North Side Of Country Club Rd., East of Cascade Creek&West of Mayo Surface Parking Facility (91-102) 5) Amendment to Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual)Advertising Signs (103-112) 6) Reconstruct le Street NW (113-114) 7) Special Assessments/Reconstruct le Street (115-116) 8) Permit Parking on 4th Street NW/400 &`50(Std ks and 5' Avenue NW/400 Block4 (117-118) E) ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Address by President Hu nzike 2) Request a Motion Adopting the Following Prepared R6id6d&hil 3) Appointment to Committees by President Hunziker 4) Address by Mayor Canfield 5) Designation of Official Paper (119-120) E) CONSENT AGENDA 6) Approval of Minutes (121-122) 7) Woolworth to Pavilion Skyway- Change Orde.r.#1 (123-124) 8) Request to Advertise for Bids for a New Ten,Udit T-Hg ggr i it i Council Agenda January 4, 1999 Page 2 (125-126) 9) Professional Services Agreement with Holabird & Root/Reynolds, Smith & Hills for Improvement Projects in the Terminal Building (127-128) 10) Professional Services Agreement with ACSG/McGhie & Betts for a NPDES/SDS Permit Application from the MPCA (129-134) 11) Professional Services Agreement with ACSG/McGhie & Betts for a 2,100 Foot Extension to Runway 02/20 (135-142) 12) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action (143-144) 13) Approval of Accounts Payable (145-148) 14) Establishing Airport Operations Special Revenue Fund and Amended Budgets for 11998 and 1999 (149-150) 15) Closing of Tax Increment Projects - Funds 311 & 319 (151-152) 16) Banking Items (153-154) 17� ileage Al � g F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (155-156) 1) City Administrator- Establishment of 1999 and 2000 Compensation for Mayor and City Council (157-158) 2) City Administrator- Establishment of Compensation for City Administrator (159-160) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/4/99 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR A EM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD PREPARED BY: S. KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation,litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: FILE UPY City of Rochester CityAdministratoes Offir-ce Me o TO: Mayor and Co n From. Gary Neuman Date: December 30, 1998 Re: Agenda Item F-4 From 12/07/98 This project to extend Arboretum Drive from Lincolnshire 8th to 41't NW was approved at the 12/07/98 meeting. Its approval was contingent upon all having all three of the abutting landowners agreeing to assessment agreements with the City. The three property-owners are Dave Bishop, Cordul and IBM. It is my understanding that Dave Bishop and Cordul have agreed but there has been no response from IBM. Mr. Bishop will want to discuss this project with the Council under the open comment section o f the agenda on 1/04198 if there has been no response from IBM. In order to extend the 'roadway to 41st NW it would require that a roadway easement be secured from IBM. C: Stevan Kvenvold Terry Adkins Terry Spaeth Richard Freese Mike Nigbur 0 Page 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/7/98 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS and RECOMMENDATIONS Public Works P..,q ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report- Construction of Arboretum Drive NW from PREPARED BY: d'^ Lincolnshire a to 4110 Street NW M. Nigbur"O 711 This project includes an extension of roadway and utilities in Arboretum Drive NW from Lincolnshire 8*to 41"Street NW. A petition has been filed with the City Clerk and referred by the City Council to the Public Works Department on November 16, 1999. IE ,ram i rp- oposed Project We report that this project is feasible and recommend its construction as a City project only if 1tN3%(one hundred percent) of the abutting owners ezecute assessment agreements for the en#ire project costs prior to initiation of a project. The lacatinn of this project is within an area proposed for residential and commercial development. The project is requested as a public project because the roadway improvements,that are needed to serve the area,crosses property owned by different individuals. This project has not been budgeted for in the City's Capital Improvement Program.The costs of this project should be paid from special assessments and connection fees collected from the benefiting properties. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of a resolution accepting the feasibility report as presented,and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Assessment Agreements with the abutting property owners for all of the project costs. COUNCIL,.ACTION: Motion by: Second by*_ to: REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED I LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT ABORETUM DRIVE NW FROM . LINCOLNHIRE 8 T H TO 41 sT STREET NW December 3, 1998 Honorable Mayor&Common Council City of Rochester,Minnesota A resolution proposing the following project. Extension of roadway and utilities to in Arboretum Drive NW from Lincolnshire 8th to 41"Street NW. A petition has been filed with the City Clerk and referred by the City Council to Public Works on November 16, 1998. Feasibility Report We report that this project is'feasible and recommend its construction as a public project only if 100%(one hundred percent)of the abutting owners execute assessment agreements for the entire project costs prior to initiation of a project. The location of this project is within an area proposed for residential and commercial development, The project is requested because the roadway improvements,that are needed to serve the area,crosses property owned by different individuals. This project has not been budgeted for in the City's Capital Improvement Program.The costs of this project should be paid from special assessments and connection charges collected from benefiting properties. i f Proposed Pioject The project consists of the extension of the Arboretum Drive NW roadway and public utilities from its current terminus point in Lincolnshire a to 4 1"Street NW. The project length is estimated to be 925 feet. The roadway is to be designed to be a 36 feet roadway on a 60 feet right of way. The utilities included as part of this project are storm sewer,sanitary sewer,and watermain. —2— DECEMBER 3, 1998 • The estimated costs of the project,made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Contract Bmwcont Project Budget Cast Final Cost Road* y $86,995.00 Sanitary Sewer $44.500.00 Water Maki $34,275.00 Storm Sewer $14,625.00 Services $4,000.00 Restoration $5,000.00 Su total $169,395.00 E 4needngr-aV Interest $%85&00 Total Ca x#udian&Evense $220,376L00 The total assessable frontage for the project is estimated at 1850 front feet. The City does not have a contributing cost share in this project The entire cost will be assessed on a proportional share basis against the abutting properties,with payment required over a period not to exceed two years,consistent with other projects of this nature. For this project to proceed the abutting owners should enter into an assessment agreement for the proportionate share of'the costs applicable for each owner prior to the initiation of the project Submitted for your consideration: Michael J. igb Douglas Nelson,PE Land Development Manager Engineering Manager •l -3- DECEMBER 3,1"S BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: Date(Orig.) J No: Description: Extension of Arboretum Drive in Lincolnshire 8ie to 41' Street NW including roadway and utilities. Total Assessable Frontage Unclevelopecl y 1850 Developed Property Q , Total 1850 DWbudw To be presently collected $220,376.00 To be deferreWpostponed $0•00 G{ys Share $0.00 Utility Share $0.00 iMrricipal State Aid $0.00 Total $220,376.00 Reverxre Sotre" Total Reim" Coniectior VAssessrr>ert Charge $216,376.00 Water Availability Charge $0.00 Sewer Availability Charge $0.00 Availabiity Charges Applicable to Proposed Project $0.00 city Share $0.00 Services $4,000.00 TOTAL $220,376.00 Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund REQUEST FOR COUNCIL. ACTION MEETING DATE - - 9 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS-Continued Item PLANNING -, i'EM DESCRIPTION: Final plat#98-34 to be known as Windsor Heights CIC PREPARED BY: #157 Brent Svenby, PI nner December 28, 1998 Planninq Deoartment Review: See attached Staff Report dated December 16, 1998. Council Action Needed: 1. The City Clerk will need to publish legal notice of the public hearing in the Post Bulletin no later than Friday, December 11, 1998. Written notice of the hearing must be mailed to owners of the land being subdivided and all owners within 500 feet of the property being subdivided no later than Friday, December 11, 1998. 2. if the Council wishes,a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. Recording Statement 3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement 4. Recording Fee 5. Title Opinion 6. 1 Original Plat Mylar 7. 4 Mylar Copies of Plat Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated December 16, 1998. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, January 4, 1999, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. McGhie&Betts, Inc. AIL COUNCIL.ACTION: Motion,by: Second by: to: I All p \ MEN ■Er■ rflllll{t; �1111I11f- - �.11111111 = n���,.".�{!,�\`�.�L ►`-�{uni ili ii iii� iill • � _..:�ill=_ _ -77 � ,� - • mull____ 1:/`la Wily"�: _=III► �w Allot. It i uunnplr ilii=-___ = c= • hl... 111111==_=1111/111 =_Ittlll NJ =11,111111 III.. - • - �i�5 —=i.1N.1111111_= Ilnlun a:p�al:u lu In l:nlln/\� vuuuulnnnu-_ _ �IYIIII► �11111111111111111/.7— _ ���� 64, • r,tom a\t"NJ Is ��► Eta� • IY�� �Ilt{7,r� ,� 11111111Ls .i11Ru �n n*;follow r t`�.iii:ii _`,'•'•'.'yam �� Ll{{{��J�♦ ti WO 171 tttr�+•A_ 87 ` i�> i •�w.waM� Alpfft 7 a yy if zz 3 no IS ko ■ ' I I I .a••e•■ � � � •°� Y Y i s V w Q rr � E vy^ Pi e� � � �i i � 1 I ,nao••• 4��i 3 Ar -g■ S gg {j -r • � 8 S I � � � � � — ILA' r3s [�som cb v 3 IS a }} ss V 8 r U 4: EGm w -�1 €b V Ff AM WMEM _ Y i3 Itslow I T l 51 _11 — i > - w U W ¢ Z°L W aQ. W o => Q � uj W ' 0 W Ln Zo L j � 111�;r11'. III�: V t I ' 1 ��11 ram: c• _ t • � '� r l :I. V I Z LfO �COUNTY OF 7/I/ nR'�ren•.aucusT•�. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 TO: Rochester Common Council PLANNING GIs/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 DATE: December 16, 1998 WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Final Plat#98-34 to be known as Windsor Heights CIC #157. Planning Department Review.- Applicant/Owner: Dakota of Rochester 1201 Meadowlark Court SW Rochester, MN 55902 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie&Betts, Inc. 1648 P Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. RPU Water Division 2. RPU Operations Division 3. Planning Department—Transportation Staff 4. Planning Department—John Harford 5. Rochester Park& Rec. 6. MnDOT 7. Olmsted County SWCD 8. Rochester Public Works Department Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments(3 Letters) 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat 4. Copy of GDP Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located south of Arthur Lane NW, east of Kings Run Drive NW. Zoning: The property is zoned R-3(Medium Density Residential)district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. ,.�„ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Windsor Heights CIC#157 December 16, 1998 Proposed Development: This plat re-plats Lot 1, Block 2 of Gramercy Park. This plat consists of 1.68 acres of land to be subdivided into 14 lots fora townhome development and one common lot. Streets: This final plat does not dedicate any public roadways. There is a private roadway(Arthur Drive NW)to the north of the plat that will serve this development. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are not required along private streets. Drainage: The property generally drains to the south and west and the grading plan has been approved for the property. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. The maps did not indicate the presence of wetlands on this property. Public Utilities: Sewer and water services can be extended from the existing lines adjacent to this property. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors at a rate of 0.8 spaces per unit, in addition to the required off-street parking. This additional parking may be provided either off- street or on-street. This development requires 11 spillover parking spaces. There is adequate room provided to meet this requirement. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland located within this plat. The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that a cash dedication, in lieu of land, is required to meet the parkland dedication requirements. General Development Plan: The Council approved the general development plan for this area, Kings Run, in 1991. While the GDP identified this as a medium density residential area, it did not show any specific development pattern on this site. This plat,therefore, generally conforms to the approved GDP. Preliminary Plat: i A preliminary plat was not required for this property. No right-of-way is being dedicated to the City with this plat. Page 3 Windsor Heights CIC#157 December 16, 1998 Planning Staff and Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this final plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact on the City's needs for parkland and that a cash dedication of$3,640 will meet this need. 2. The private care and maintenance agreements for the common areas be provided to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the recording of the plat. 3. The applicant provides adequate storm water management facilities on site or provides a written request to the Public Works Department to participate in the City's plan for storm water management. I ROCHES ]Fc " - Minnesota 12/16/98 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS T0: Consolidated PlanningDepartment 201 4"'Street SE Room 108 p Rochester, MN 55904-3740 2122 Campus Drive SE 507-287-7800 Rochester, MN 55904 FAX—507-281-6216 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur Public Works has reviewed the requested Final Plat for Dakota of Rochester Windsor Heights #98-34. The following are the Public Works Comments on the proposal: I. The property is subject to the following assessments and charges and fees: g 4- Storm Water management facilities must be provided or voluntary participation in the City's storm water management plan must be requested. r Recreo, Q Park and Recreation Department City of Rochester r 201 Fourth Street SE • Room 150 • Rochester, MIN 55904 (507) 281-6160 FAX (507) 281-6165 December 11, 1998 To: Suzanne LaPalm Consolidated Planning From: Rochester Park and Recreation RE: Windsor Heights CIC 157 (aka Lot 1 Block 2 Gramercy Park Sub) Acreage ......................................................................... 1.68 acres Number of Dwelling Units ............................................ 14 units Dwelling Unit Density ................................................... 8.33 units/acre DensityFactor ............................................................ .14 DedicationRequirement .............................................. .26 acres Fair Market Value of Land ........................................... $14,000/acre The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication requirement for the plat be satisfied by: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of$3,640 (.26 acres X$14,000/acre) Applica t: Jerry Nelson 1201 Meadowlark Ct SW ms:�ea-SWCD ID : 507-280--2858 DEC 10 '98 14 :07 No .004 P .01 f OLMSTED SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1486 IM "riai Drivel NW Room 102 R001100er,Minnesota 56001 M 1 N Nf ESOTA (SO/)280.2850 SOIL, AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS December 10, 1999 Olmsted County Planning Attention: Suzanne I.apalm 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester,MN 55904 Attention: Su7mm LaPahn Re: Final Plat#98.34 Please refer to comments dated(Mober 16, 1998 of which a copy is attached. In addition we would recommend installation of rock construction access to each lot to prevent- sediment tracking onto Authur Lane NW. Sediment tracked onto streets during late fall and winter is a serious problem for motorists and street maintenance personnel. Sincerely, Floyd hitaker District Technician I'W/dm cc: David Kramer,Rochester Public Works I � i I 1 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER l IJ C'. 1V �O 1J 14U JCS . i l OLMSTED SOIL A%.. WATER CONSERVATION JISACT 1485 Industrial Drive NW Room 102 Rochester,Minnesota 85901 (507)280.2850 MINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS October 16, 1998 Olmsted County Planning Attention: Suzanne LaPalm 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester,MN 55904 Attention: Suzanne LaPalm Re: Type I Performance Residential Development#98-23 by Dakota of Rochester 17he Olmstcd SWCD reviewed the plat to known as Gramercy Park. Erosion control measures need to be in place prior to any-grading activities. The back yards ofthe lots are steep and prone to erosion when cover is disturbed. Runoff and erosion from the back yards of the proposed homes will impact homeowners in Kings Run Third Subdivision. In addition to silt fence at the toe of the slope top soil and sod on slopes greater than 6 percent may be required We recommend exposed soil surfaces be mulched prior to freeze up of any disturbed area this fall. Periodic inspections of erosion control measures must be completed as part of the grading plan with inspection and needed repairs performed within 24 hours of all storm events. If you have any questions please call 280-2850. Sincerely, FloydWhitaker District Technician FW/dm c: David Kramer,Rochester Public Works AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1-4-9 9 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING .D..Z EM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase 11 Zoning District Amendment#98-16 by David T. PREPARED BY: Bishop to rezone approximately 3.34 acres of land of the R-1 (Mixed Single Family)to the Mitzi A.Baiter, R-1x(Mixed Single Family Extra)district. The property is platted as Outiot C, Pine Ridge Planner Estates 3'd Subdivision and is located within the loop of Ponderosa Drive SW, immediately east of 18d'Avenue SW. December 28, 1998 City Plannina and Zonina Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on November 23, 1998 and December 9, 1998 to consider this zone change request. At the meetings a number of neighbors spoke in opposition to the zone change. The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria outlined in Paragraph 60.338 of the Land Development Manual and concluded that the zone change requested would be incompatible with the neighborhood. Based on the finding that the zone change request would be incompatible with the neighborhood, the Planning Commission recommends that this zone change petition as requested be denied. Motion by Petersson, seconded by Cevera to recommend denial of Zoning District Amendment#98-16 with the above finding. Motion carried 8-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated November 19, 1998. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing according to the procedures of Paragraphs 60.650 and,60.651 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: a) whether the area,as presently zoned,is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the comprehensive plah, was zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error,or has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area;and OUNCII.ACTION; otion By: Seconded By: Action: /Page 2 1 RCA De tuber 28, 1998 l b) whether permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood,and . c) whether the proposed amendment involves spot zoning. (Spot zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state.) 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated November 19, 998, 1998 2. Minutes of November 23, 1998 and December 9, 1998 CPZC Meetings I Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Legal Descriptions Attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on January 4, 1999 in the Council / Board Chamber the Rochester-Olmsted Government Center Building 6. Yaggy Colby Associates III 01!04/99 16:20 FAX 507 287 2275 ROCH-101234 PLANNING DEPT. -+ CITY CLERK 10002 RO? Yt�GGY CUIBY �(MGN) 1. 4" 99 16 09/ST• 16:03/N0. 4261120128 P 1 ARCHITICTI • ' GUAYiYAA! I Ianuary 4, 1999 1ANOiCAli A11nIlITlnr! Honorable Mayor and Common Council City of Rochester i c/o Ms.Mini Balzer i Rochester/Olmsted Planning Departmcrnt 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester,MN 55904 I � I . RE: Southridge Townhomes First Subdivision Rochester,Minnesota Dear Mayor and Council: ! i Mr.David Bishop requests that the Type III,Al ase II Zoning District Amendment#98-16, from the R 1 to the R-Ix District scheduled ior tonight's city council meeting be tabled. sCHWERoiFiCE: Mr. Bishop is not able to be at tonight's city council meeting. He feels he should be - available to discuss the project and to answers questions when this Amendment is heard. 717 Third Avenue SE We would appreciate your tabling it until the January 20, 1999 council meeting. Rochester,MN S5904 Sincerely, , YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES so7.sas.6,as4 Paz 507•288.3038 Wade DuMond Project Designer WCD:bsd MASON CITY oFFICEi YCA.#5694-10 j 515-414••6344 Fax Si5.024+0351 I t a r wl ownuntly fwfaycr I �ul1ACSTER. 1. COUNTY OF A94TED. uGVS'V* ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 TO: City Planning &Zoning Commission PLANNING ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 GISIAODRESSiNG/ 507/285-8232 FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner MAPPING HOUSiNG/HRA 507/285-8224 DATE: November 19, 1998 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 X RE: Zoning District Amendment#98-16 by David T. Bishop to rezone 507/287-2275 approximately 3.34 acres of land from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family)to the R-1x (Mixed Single Family Extra) district. The property is platted as Outlot C, Pine Ridge Estates 3rd Subdivision and is located within the loop of Ponderosa Drive SW, immediately east of 18'hAvenues SW. Consolidated Planning- Department Review: Petitioner: David T. Bishop 1185 Plummer Circle Rochester, MN 55902 Location of Property: The property is located within the loop of Ponderosa Drive SW. The propertyis platted as Outlot C, Pine Ridge Estates 3 Subdivision. Requested Action: The applicant is requesting a zone change from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family)district to the R-1x(Mixed Single Family Extra)district on the property. Existing Land Use&Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family)district in the City. The Land Use Plan designated the property suitable for"low density residential"types of uses. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Single family lots in the R-1 zoning district in the City. This property is designated for"low density residential"types of uses on the Rochester Urban Service Land Use Plan. South: Single family lots in the R-1 zoning district in the City. This property is designated for"low density residential"types of uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. West: Across 18th Avenue SW is developed land in the R- 1 (Low Density Residential)district in the County.. This property is designated for"low density residential"types of ' Z3 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFfRMATIVE ACTIION EMPLOYER Page 2 November 19,1998 uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. East: Single family lots in the R-1 zoning district in the City. This property is designated for"low density residential"types of uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan indicates that this property is designated as suitable for "low density residential-types of uses. The rezoning of the property would be consistent with the Rochester Service Area Land Use Plan Map. Referral Agency Comments: 1. RPLI Operations Division 2. RPU Water Division 3. Mn/DOT 4. Planning Dept. Transportation Staff 5. Planning Dept.John Harford 6. US West 7. Rochester Public Works Department Analysis: The applicant is requesting a zoning district amendment to rezone the property from its present R-1 li (Mixed Single Family)district to the R-1 x(Mixed Single Family Extra)district. The applicant filed a Conditional Use Permit for a Performance Residential DevLelbpment for this site when townhomes were a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district. The plan was being reviewed by Staff at the time that the Performance Residential Developments were removed from the R-1 zoning district and the new R-1x zoning district was created. The R-1x zoning district is the old R-1 zoning district with the addition of Manufactured Home Parks as a Conditional Use. The R-1 zoning district was revised to remove Performance Residential Developments and Duplexes from the district. Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual,the Commission recommendation and final determinations of the Council shall be supported by findings addressing the relationship of the proposed amendment to the following'policies: 1) In the case of amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition; a) the area,as presently zoned,is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the comprehensive plan,was originally zoned erroneous due to a technical or administrative error,or has changed or Is changing to such a degree that it is in the public Interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of the area;and b) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood, and c) the proposed amendment does not Involve spot zoning. (Spot zoning Involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which Is different than that assigned to surrounding properties,for reasons Inconsistent with the Page 3 December 4,1998 purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state.) Staff Recommendation: Staff suggests the following findings for rezoning the land from R-1 to R-1 x: 1. The area presently zoned and as proposed to be zoned are consistent with the Land Use Plan. With a recent amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance& Land Development Manual. townhome and condominium developments are no longer permitted in the R-1 zoning district. The applicant did submit an application,when townhomes were a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district,for a conditional use permit for a townhome development on this site. In order for this proposed development to proceed,the zoning of the property needs to be of a district that allows townhome developments. 2. The uses within the R-1 x are appropriate and compatible with other residential districts and neighborhoods. The permitted uses in the R-1 x zoning district are the same uses that were permitted in the R-1 zoning district with the exception of manufactured home parks. These uses can be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods by meeting the performance standards of the zoning district. Performance standards including bufferyards and landscaping are adequate to mitigate any negative impacts from the district. 3. The proposed amendment would not result in spot zoning. Based upon the above findings,the Planning Staff would recommend approval of the zone change request from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family)to the R-1 x(Mixed Single Family Extra)zoning district. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Letters from neighbors(4) 4. Minutes from the 11/23/98 and 9/10/97 CPZC meetings and 10/6/97 Council meeting `n'�n' �! U � ~ l N 3W H yO�i o . 1 I 1 rx I ra G N � i an # 3W OOOM d 1St 3AV AYMOVM Hi 3AY 1St �' ist�, �' � � � 3A L�t� � •• 3AV ONZ z y b0 Ttim 3AV, kn 3AV COW OTC Oaf � � � 'D H 3AY 10 NO, 139MM1 MS MO 3S HLt 3AV Q�M His tt0 3JOQ! w n I 3AV His WJN3m ' HtiZ s 1 � f DR SW 1 its w IW M3uw�H I.. . . n 3, MS �\ fORESi a i - L� MS 3W Icy` I �' H7 3AV Hitt MS 3AV MSS j M 4!"� r � Ooo ol M ON QII Jt111fl00 ms Z�' ODOOM 1 i �r104 iNS � � rrYSHe 1 i ,WO Pup •' !p r,O S.A rro e R-1 95.5q 1 rt Rs aR t rue ! 1 40 Iff �R4 W t R-Sa ° ! J v Rt ,,.. R-1 R-1 ' �4 ` Na• " s 8 f t ��� RSA 95-6 N�ertw 4 }w EV R R-1 PM ' R1 6.0 O5.10A PM R-1 t ^lo ~M 9 1 j\AFL 25 rua S V. 3 mean /Ile / \\ NeN no I -i 96-$ R-1 W R R-1 . ! i R-1 ..� IR4 MN {� R•t •rrC:�� + ZONING DISTRICTS NOX•RESIDMI OR ' IlESIOENCEOISTRlCT3 b, Owe—.view uoom raeWr H•OeeeeW CaeeeMeW R.!•MgNfleowfImmy M-2•In.eeMY R-1 Ra.taee OeaWft RrWeeYM i MRo-me"RaeeeeMrerlel t e Ri.Meeewl MraRlr RasNeMW ! AG-AgNpNMei R1,Nye OeeWp RealeeMlM PERFORMANCE DISTRICTS Puo-rueeee uee oeaMge,w Coe-caw"covia"Mod coo J FLOOO DISTRICTS !D .sreWW DNN d PC -Ffbm"Moller M*wM* l _ CeeaalAre. rw -pit"x Maher h"Omoo" � 1t � � tvtw.rewwx/eeWweMA,.. u >- i „JNWO 3NOZ ��•� a� V<" ISM S3WOHNMOI 30011IH.MOS a P-1000 i A N tZ N W � rp W N CC O U. \6� ; � O W d� Z 0 N s 0 N nr VA. Q\ ui = 0 C) m W 0 © Z w O N N Q �'I 0 0 N �3nN y ON •, t ��N,18� ON 'OO Anthony s. Ande •n 3 2236 Ponderosa Dr.S.W. Rochester MN. 33902 Phone 232-9793 e-mail:tm3@prodigy.net ...� 71 November 13, 1998 Brent Svenby Planning Dept." ---___ 2122 Campus Dr. S.E. Rochester MN 55904 Mr. Brent Svenby, I am writing to you regarding the townhome development proposed for the property located just east of 18th ave on Ponderosa Dr. S.W. being developed by Dave Bishop. I, along with the whole of our neighborhood, are requesting that approval of this project be denied. Please see the enclosed petition signed by the whole of our neighborhood. 0 When I, and each of my neighbors, bought property in this development we were assured that the outlying lot, now proposed for townhomes, would be developed as single family dwellings. Dave Bishop initially was developing this property for single family homes, it wasn't until he made some mistakes and faced some financial hardships that he decided to resort to townhomes. Please refer to the City Council minutes of October 6th, 1993., which specifically requests Mr. Bishop "keep with the character of the neighborhood and build single family homes." The new R-lx Zoning has more to do with manufactured housing than towmhomes, this I realize, but the fact is towmhomes and multifamily housing units were included to more delineate what can be built in the future on certain properties. I attended the Planning Commision board meeting of November 9th, 1998 and learned the board had a process in place for dealing with such matters as multifamily housing and manufactured homes and in fact recommended against the R-lx zoning. I refer to this only because the fact that this zoning change became effective approximately a few months ago, some feel that gives Mr. Bishop the right to place towmhomes on this property. Please listen to your constituents, the majority wanted this zone change so they in fact have a say in "what kind of housing" is to be developed in their neighborhood. The City Council recommended Dave Bishop keep this property single family homes, the neighborhood "unanimously" wants single family homes. One developer wants towmhomes to make some money. Please do the right thing and and deny this towmhome project. Sincerely, Anthony S. Anderson Petition to Rochester City t- ,ncil for the denial of townhornes prop'- I on what is know as the"Lily property"located on Ponderosa Dr. S.W., east of I 8th ave. S.W. Dated November 1st. 1998 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUNMER -7 1�13 III it It 11 11WULUL J'Y)�k-L G-<.,�h 0 C.J (ILL, 7 5' a4n.42y� J.' /0 pa 6- it jA S CA 7 es- page Forwarded by: cityhallNci.rochester.mn.us Forwarded to: eschneiderCOci.rochester.mn.us Date forwarded: Sun, 15 Nov 98 19:29:15 CST Date sent: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 19:35:17 -0600 From: "William J. Schmidt" cbaritonQibm.net)- Send reply to: baritonOibm.net To: ccanfieldQci.rochester.mn.us, jhunziker@ci.rochester.mn.us, ehruskafci.rochester.mn.us, mmarcoux@ci.rochester.mn.us, jmcconnellecLrochester.mn.us, wstobaughf?ci.rochester.m n.us, mevansOci.rochester.mn.us, dsenjem@ci.rochester.mn.us Subject: David Bishop's rezoning proposal Honorable mayor and council members, OV 18 I'm writing to express my family's firm opposition to David Bishop's -- rezoning request, known as Type III,Phase II Zoning District Amendment#98-16 for the land platted as Outlot C,Pine Ridge Estates 3rd Subdivision (the"Lillie property"). I am a homeowner in Pine Ridge Estates 2nd Subdivision,with four lots intervening between my home and the site of the proposed development. It is my unwaveringzcpr conviction that Mr. Bishop's proposal to build multi-family townhomes P1``�" will destroy the aesthetic environment,and hence the value,of our « Qw secluded,single-family neighborhood. .i Our street,Ponderosa Drive,offers a unique value proposition that is quite rare within the city of Rochester. The neighborhood is constructed as a single,dead-end street on a wooded hill in southwest Rochester. The plat plans call for this street to eventually be extended to the top of the hill in a switchback fashion,with only a single entrance to Ponderosa Drive from 18th Avenue SW. Most of the lots, particularly in the 2nd subdivision,are larger than normal for in-city lots,and harbor woods that provide both beauty and privacy. Many, if not most,of the existing homes are valued at well over $200,000,with houses reportedly in the$290,000 range currently under construction in the newest portion of the development. The neighborhood is quiet,secluded,and economically above average. In its present state,homeowners can reasonably expect that the value of their homes will grow as development in the area continues. The Pine Ridge Estates development occupies land formerly owned by a Dr. Lillie, now deceased. Prior to Dr.Lillie's death, he sold most of his land for development,retaining a sizable acreage containing the family home,outbuildings,and a private drive. This acreage, which borders on Ponderosa Drive in two places, is the subject of the proposal now in dispute. II After Dr. Lillie's death,Mr. Bishop decided to purchase the remaining Lillie property. His original plan,as he stated to a meeting of neighborhood homeowners on November 11th of this year,was to build single-family homes on the lots at the bottom of the hill,and to restore the existing Lillie home on the remaining property. Mr. h Bisop now admits that he made a mistake in investing in the property I 9 P P er tY before determining whether his project was feasible. After purchasing II the property and investing a large amount of money in the first stages of restoration,Mrs Bishop found that the house had serious foundation problems (including no foundation wall whatsoever on one side of the house). He realized that any attempt to further restore the house j would cost him more than he would be able to get back from,selling it. j Mr. Bishop then abandoned his restoration plans,razed the house to the ground,and embarked on his present proposal to erect twelve units of multi-family housing on the land previously intended to hold one single-family home. I The concept of multi-family townhomes is utterly at odds with the street atmosphere of the neighborhood. None of the homeowners on the st P S re would have considered building our homes here if there had already I been townhomes present as proposed by Mr. Bishop,or if there were even a hint that such a travesty was possible. If these townhomes are constructed,the value proposition of the neighborhood will no longer exist. Because of the dead-end nature of the street,current and future residents will have to pass this densely packed, lower income complex on the way to their homes. Houses atop the hill in future I extensions to the Pine Ridge Estates development will have to look down on it. Demand for property in our neighborhood will dwindle,and the values of our homes will be seriously reduced. It seems likely that each homeowner in the neighborhood will suffer equity losses of at least $10,000,while those unfortunate enough to be adjacent to the property will probably lose double that amount. It should be noted that Mr. Bishop attempted to push this proposal through without any consultation with the neighbors or with the developer of the Pine Ridge Estates subdivisions. Only after it became clear that the neighborhood was aware of his plans and was unanimously opposed to them,did Mr. Bishop attempt to organize a j meeting with the neighborhood to explain his position. At this meeting,Mr. Bishop explained the history of his involvement with the I II land and stated that his proposal was designed "to lose less money than I would otherwise." We in the neighborhood feel strongly that Mr. Bishop,as a wealthy man who has profited from land speculation in the past,should suffer losses arising from his own mistakes without attempting to reduce them at the expense of the neighbors. The net losses to the neighborhood if townhomes are built will be much more than the amount by which Mr. Bishop might reduce his losses. Furthermore,at the neighborhood meeting,several viable proposals for replotting the land were made by local homeowners. It seems very feasible to divide the Lillie acreage into five or six valuable lots appropriate for single-family homes, in addition to the three lots already planned at the bottom of the hill. Given current land values in the area, it would be quite possible to sell these lots and obtain the$300,000 Mr. Bishop claims he needs. Such a proposal would be in keeping with the neighborhood's aesthetics,and would be palatable to the existing homeowners. Another objection to the building of townhomes is the probability that they will become rental property within a short time period. Mr. Bishop believes that he will be able to sell his townhomes for $190,000 per unit (far less than the median home price in the area). A local real estate agent told me privately that he would expect them to sell for about $140,000. This disparity means that Mr. Bishop may very well not be able to sell the units for enough money to cover the costs of construction. This is very similar to the situation that arose in 1990 when John Bouquet built the French Creek West townhomes (where I happened to live for a few years). Mr. Bouquet found that he had overestimated the market demand for these townhomes,and immediately converted them to rental property. I'm certain that the homeowners in that neighborhood were caught by surprise when this occurred. We must avoid a similar nasty surprise in ours. I am convinced that the townhomes proposed by Mr. Bishop are very likely to end up as rental property within the next five years. I ask you to firmly deny this rezoning request from Mr. Bishop. On one side we have two dozen families who stand to lose a large portion of their life's savings,as represented by the equity in their homes. On the other side we have a wealthy and well-connected politician,who stands to lose a tiny fraction of his fortune because of his own hastiness and blundering. There is only one fair answer to this dispute. Let Mr. Bishop reap what he has sown. IQ k"Y would like to leave you with one final thought. Suppose that some enterprising land speculator decided to buy a couple of the mansions in Mr. Bishop's neighborhood on Plummer Circle, raze them to the ground, and cram as many multi-family townhome units as possible onto the cleared land? Do you suppose that Mr. Bishop and his neighbors would permit this? I think we all know the answer. Thank you for your kind attention. Regards, William J. Schmidt 2237 Ponderosa Drive SW Rochester, MN 55902-1109 bariton@ibm.net or wjs@vnet.ibm.com 507-253-0852 (days) 507-281-3680 (evenings) II II / f Forwarded by: cityhail@ci.rochester.mn.us Forwarded to: eschnsider@ci.rochester.mn.us Date forwarded: Sun, 15 Nov 98 20:55:35 CST To: jhunziker@ci.roehester.mn.us �l Orate sent: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:06:16 -0600 Subject: Zoning in the Pine Ridge Estate Subdivision From: geisler.kathleen@juno.com (Kathy L Geisler) November 15, 1998 - Dear Council Member Hunziker, We are writing to you concerning the town homes Dave Bishop is proposing to build in our neighborhood on 'Or John Lillie's property' in the Pine Ridge Estates subdivision in southwest Rochester. We built our home in this neighborhood with the understanding that it would be a neighborhood of single family homes and not town homes. In fact,when Mr. Bishop first bought Dr. Lillie's property,he stated that he would subdivide the property into lots for single family homes. The City Council specifically asked him to subdivide this land for single family housing at their meeting on October 6, 1997. He is now saying that he would like to construct 12 town homes in this area We feel the zoning of our neighborhood should not change so that these town homes can be built. Town homes would change the continuity of Ponderosa Dr.,significantly increase traffic on Ponderosa Dr.,and decrease the value of our home. You will be voting for this zoning change at your council meeting on Nov. 23. Please consider the interest of all the homeowners and vote to keep Mr. Bishop's property zoned for single-family housing and not zoned for town homes. Sincerely, Tim and Kathy Geisler 2157 Ponderosa Or. SW 281-5358 geisler.kathleen@juno.com You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet a-mail. Get 1 , 1 P Forwarded by: cityhnll@ci.rochester.mn.us Forwarded to: eahneider@ci.rochester.mn.us Date forwarded: Thu, 19 Nov 98 12:56:42 CST Send reply to: <TM34Pprodigy.net> From: "Michelle and Tony Anderson" 4TM34Pprodigy.net> To: <ccanfield@ci.rochester.mn.us>, <jhunziker@ci.rochester.mn.us>, <ehruskn@ci.rochsster.mn.us>, <mnarcoux@ci.rochester.mn.us>, jmeconnell@ei.rochester.mn.us>, <wstobaugh@ci.rochester.mn.us>, <mevans@ci.rochester.mn.us>, cdsenjem@ci.rochester.mn.us3I Copies to: "Mark Henderson" <mhenderson@mayo.edu>, "Wendy & Mike Sebesta" <sebesta@worldnet.att.net), Subject: Dave Bishop's rezoning proposal from R-1 to R-1x for towmhomes. Date sent: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:32:41 -0600 Honorable mayor and council members: I am writing to you regarding the townhome development proposed for the property located just east of 18th ave on Ponderosa Dr. S.W. being developed by Dave Bishop. I,along with the whole of our neighborhood,are requesting that approval of the rezoning from R-1 to R-1x needed for this project be denied. 'I When I,and each of my neighbors, bought property in this development we were assured that the outlying lot,now proposed for townhomes, would contain single family dwellings. This lot has always held a single family dwelling- the Lily property. When Dave Bishop purchased this property he commited to building single family dwellings on this lot. Not one of the households would have purchased a lot in this _ development had townhouses existed! r� For most of us this is our second or third home. Most of the homes in this neighborhood exceed $200,000.00. Dmrc Bishop is proposing I townhomes that cost significantly less. Each and every one of us not only face significant devaluation of our properties but also the loss PIA,:,.!�.:� of the aesthetic character of the neighborhood we came here for! In rezoning this area you would be spot zoning. It is my understanding that under the provisions of the Rochester Land Development Manual proposed amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition can not involve spot zoning. I R-1x was backed by the majority of constituents for a reason, townhomes are included in R-1x for a reason - they are not single family dwellings. People want more say and control over the types of structures that can be built next to their properties. It is also my understanding that Mr. Bishop submitted plans for townhomes prior to the implementation of R-1x and was under staff review when R-1x passed. Therefore,some feel it should be grandfathered? I had the opportunity to attend the Planning Commission board meeting on November 9th. The board made it clear to the audience that they recommended against R-1x and the City Council passed R-1x anyway. The planning commission felt that constituents had enough protection through the process of conditional use permits. I,for one,am glad we have R-1x. It puts more control in the hands of the constituents. whether R-1x was implemented during this projects staff review,a year ago or 10- the fact remains it must pass R-1x. Please, lets use R-1x as it certainly was meant to be used to protect the members of this community. Please consider the precedent that the City of Rochester will be making if it approves this project. There are single family dwellings on each of the four sides of the proposed site. In essence, Dave Bishop is half-hazardly plunking down townhouses right in the middle of our neighborhood,all for the sake of a buk. Who will be safe in knowing what kind of structures can be built next to their home if someone with enough money and clout can come to your back yard,rezone and build what they wish? It will be telling people to relocate to a community that is more constituent friendly! Please make a statement to Dave Bishop and developers like him,that they can not come into our backyard and do what they wish for the sake of a buk,that they must listen to the members of the community. Sincerely, Anthony S. Anderson - ✓ram I Forwarded by: cityhaII4?c1.rochestsr.mn.us ` Forwarded to: eschneidereci.rochsster.mn.us Date forwarded: Thu, 5 Nov 98 22:16:37 CST f Send reply to: <sebestaeworidnet.a".net> dnS• From: "Michael Ssbesta" <�ebest20woridnst.att.W3' To: "John Hunziker" <jh=Ik"cl.rochsster.mn.us> Subject: Lillie property proposed site plan Date sent: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:14:35 -06M II November 5, 1998 Dear Council President Hunzikor, Something disturbing has come to the attention of the homeowners Ij living in the Pine Ridge Estates neighborhood in southwest Rochester (Ponderosa Drive SW). It is our understanding that n parcel of land situated in the pm'' I, middle of our small neighborhood(the old Dr.John Lillie property, which is now owned by Dave Bishop),will be used to build twelve townhouse units. According to the proposed site plan obtained from the Planning Department,the plan calls for two units(total of 5 II townhouses)to be built with driveways on Ponderosa Drive,and two more units(total of 7 townhouses)to be built on the western portion of the property with two access driveways on Ponderosa Drive. II While we do not dispute the right of Mr. Bishop to build on the property, it is his blatant disregard for the character and continuity of the type of houses in our neighborhood,specifically single-family houses,that gives us cause to be concerned. We are sensitive to the fact that the property values of the homes in our area,particularly those adjacent to this project,will plummet if the townhouse development is built,and there is much concern regarding the resale of our homes. I Our hope was that Mr. Bishop would comply with the style of the single-family structures that the developer of Pine Ridge has al II n9 lY per dge ready created. In fact,the City Council specifically asked him to do so at the October 6, 1997,City Council Meeting. He has chosen to ignore the Council's requested guidelines,and submitted a plan which goes against not only the discussion at this meeting,but the existing covenant of our neighborhood. Even more confusing is that Mr. Bishop Ij I has had crews working every day to prepare the property according to 33 plans that have not yet been approvedl The construction of seven driveways in a small area has us concerned for many reasons,primarily because this excessive number of driveways in a small area is definitely not in character for a residential neighborhood like Pine Ridge. We are especially concerned with the fact that the northern access driveway comes down a steep hill and ends at the intersection of 18th Avenue SW and Ponderosa Drive SW. While creating traffic interaction at an unusual angle, this intersection is the main bus stop for all of the neighborhood's children and adults,and is a potential problem. In addition, in the process of clearing his property over the past week,Mr. Bishop has destroyed much of the natural elegance that attracted all of us to this neighborhood by cutting down large trees and vegetation. He has left many of the houses built on the western and eastern sides of the upper part of Ponderosa Drive exposed to the view from 18th Ave. SW,Mayowood Road SW,20th Avenue SW,and especially Highway 52. This has now created a major increase in the noise level from traffic as well. As homeowners in this neighborhood,we are devastated by the results of one man's ideas without regard to the people they affect. We want you to be aware of this encroachment on our beautiful neighborhood,where people have built homes intending to live in them for a long time. We urge you to vote against Mr. Bishop's proposed site plan for all of the above mentioned reasons,and help us to preserve our neighborhood as it was originally intended to be. Thank you. Sincerely, Wendy and Mike Sebesta 2221 Ponderosa Drive SW 281-4727 sebesta0worldnet.att.net Ili Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes li Hearing Date: November 23, 1998 w Ii that at the appropriate time, they adopt the ordinance to amend the zoning. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Type Ili, Phase it Zoning District Amendment#98.16 by David T. Bishop to rezone i - approximately 3.34 acres of land of the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the R-1 x(Mixed Single Family Extra) district. The property is platted as Outlot C, Pine Ridge Estates V II Subdivision and is located within the loop of Ponderosa Drive SW, immediately east of 18'h Avenue SW. i Ms. Schultze mentioned the petition in the packet and stated that it refers to two pages, and her packet only contains one. She also stated that one letter refers to the City Council meeting of October 6, 1997, and she did not receive a copy of those minutes. I it was clarified that the petition received by staff contained only one page. Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated November 19, 1998, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby explained the property location and noted it is currently zoned R-1 and is designated for low-density residential uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. He reviewed the zoning of adjacent properties. Mr. Svenby stated the applicant filed a performance residential conditional use permit request when townhomes were a permitted use in the R-1 district, and it was being reviewed by staff at the time performance residential developments were removed from the R-1 district, with the new R-1x district.created. He explained that the R-1x zoning district is the old R-1 zoning district with the addition of manufactured home parks as a conditional use. The R-1 zoning district was revised to remove j performance residential developments and duplexes from the district. Mr. Svenby reviewed the criteria and staff-suggested findings, and stated that based on the findings, staff recommends i approval. Ms. Wiesner asked why Mr. Bishop needed to come before the Commission in 1997 regardingl', this property. i I Mr. Svenby explained that the property was being platted as Pine Ridge Estates Third Subdivision and at the time, a number of neighbors expressed concern about townhome development. In response to those concerns, Mr. Bishop stated he would try to save the old farmhouse if it was feasible, but eventually tore it down because it wasn't feasible. Ms. Wiesner asked if it was platted in one large parcel. Mr. Svenby stated it was platted as three lots and one large outlot, but was replatted several months ago into one large lot. Ms. Wiesner asked why Mr. Bishop did not have to come before the Commission to repiat the property. it Ms. Baker explained that a final plat doesn't require review by the Planning Commission. She stated that in this case, the applicant replatted the property months after the final plat was i i Page 4 l City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 23, 1998 approved by the City Council. She noted that in repiatting, if the applicant is not dedicating new right-of-way, the Planning Commission does not review it. Ms. Wiesner asked if a plat was approved with four lots, could they replat to six lots as long as they meet the minimum standards for the zoning district and don't add new right-of-way Ms. Baker answered yes. Don Borcherding, Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He presented a map of the original final plat and explained it: He then presented a map of the amended plat. Mr. Borcherding stated that the old house had structural problems and could not be remodeled cost-effectively, so they removed it and replatted as one parcel. He noted that was when they looked at townhouse development. Ms. Wiesner asked why A and B were outlots. Mr. Borcherding explained one was sold off with another lot to make it a larger single-family lot. Mr. Borcherding presented a drawing of the proposed townhome development, explaining it consists of 12 townhouse units on 3.3 acres. He noted there will be two 3-plexes, one twin- plex, and one 4-plex, with only five units being visible from Ponderosa Drive. Mr. Borcherding explained access to the back part of the parcel. He compared the proposed development to the Woodhaven and Oakcliff developments, which were infill developments, but much larger in scale and completely surrounded by single family homes. Mr. Borcherding stated that even though there was opposition to these developments when they were proposed, both projects have been very well accepted. Ms. Schultze asked if both those developments remained owner-occupied. Mr. Borcherding answered yes. He pointed out that if this proposal was addressed two months ago, it would have only needed staff approval because performance residential developments were an allowed use in the R-1 district, with certain densities and other restrictions. Mr. Borcherding noted that there are a number of other areas in town that had zone changes initiated by the City Council so they wouldn't have to come through this process, but since the general development plan on this property didn't designate townhome development, it could not be included with the collective zone change. Ms. Schultze asked if the proposed plan is a performance residential development. Mr. Borcherding answered yes, and explained the landscaping and buffers that qualify the development as performance residential. Ms. Petersson commented that a lot of trees will be removed, and she asked if they are going to replant. Mr. Borcherding stated they would plant what is shown on the plan, and will add more if that is not sufficient. YVPage 5 / City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 23, 1998 Ms. Baker reminded the Commission they are not reviewing a site plan at this time and the only thing the Commission and the audience should be responding to is the zone change itself, at face value, not based on any site plan. Mr. Borcherding stated they are required to eventually submit a site plan to staff and they would, be bound by it. Dave Bishop 1185 Plummer Circle SW, addressed the Commission. He explained this property was the home of Dr. John Lillie who sold it to Dennis Peterson for development. Mr. Bishop reviewed the history of this property and explained the proposed access. He stated that at the time of the preliminary plat, neighbors had asked him if he was going to build townhomes, to which he answered no. He told the Planning Commission the same thing and the plat was approved. Mr. Bishop reviewed the changes that were made on the final plat, and explained that it was not feasible to save the Lillie home because of problems with the foundation. It was'I at that time that he began to look into townhome development. He noted that these would be wider than typical townhomes, with walkout basements and bay windows. Mr. Bishop stated that Yaggy Colby Associates designed the development and it was presented to Planning staff !I in September. He explained that the townhomes would be in the $180-195,000 range and would not have a negative impact on the values of the other properties in the area. Mr. Bishop III made himself available for questions. Anthony Anderson, 2236 Ponderosa Drive SW, addressed the Commission. Mr. Anderson stated he is representing the residents of the neighborhood, most of whom are in attendance. He explained that they are unanimous in their opposition to the zone change. Mr. Anderson questioned Mr. Borcherding's statement that the Woodhaven and Oakcliff townhome developments are widely accepted now. Ms. Petersson pointed out she lives near the Woodhaven development and even though there was initial opposition by the neighborhood, the development fits in very well. Mr. Anderson noted that Oakcliff is a very large piece of land, but this proposed development isi only 3+ acres. He stated that some neighbors of his moved away from the area around the French Creek development, because these became rental units when they didn't sell. Mr. Anderson stated that when the residents of Pine Ridge Estates purchased their homes, they had reasonable expectation that this area would be developed with single-family homes. He pointed out that the City Council advised Mr. Bishop to keep the character of this neighborhood and build single-family homes. Mr. Anderson noted that history has a long list of abuses by the connected, powerful, and rich, and he asked that list not be added to, pointing out the majority of people in this community recommend that R-1 x zoning be denied. Mr. Bishop responded to Mr. Anderson's statement about power, saying that he thought it was out of line. He noted he has not tried to influence anyone except the neighbors. Mr. Bishop' stated he has not spoken with the Commission members regarding this and he spoke to only one Council member who asked him to respond. He admitted he took his chances on this project and if this could possibly have a negative impact on neighboring properties, he suggested the Planning Commission approve only a portion of this for rezoning,with the remainder being three 80 foot lots on Ponderosa Drive. Mr. Bishop stated only the rezoned property would be developed as townhomes. Page 6 / City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 23, 1998 Mr. DeWitz asked him if he was changing the proposal that he submitted for review. Mr. Bishop stated the Commission has the power to approve the rezoning for all but the three 80 foot lots. Mr. DeWitz commented that the best idea would be to table this and have Mr. Bishop meet with the neighbors and work this out; then submit a different plan. Mr. Bishop stated he would be agreeable to that. Ms. Petersson made a motion to table Zoning District Amendment#98-16 by David Bishop indefinitely. Ms. Wiesner asked about the 60-day deadline. Mr. Svenby reminded the Commission that they are not considering a site plan this evening, only the rezoning of the property. Ms. Schultze pointed out that if the lot is sized differently, that may have a major impact on how the Commission acts. Mr. Patterson noted that this is a zoning issue before the Commission this evening. He stated if there is a willingness to table, it would create an opportunity for the developer and the neighborhood to get together and come back with another proposal for the zone change. Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Bishop if he would waive the 60-day requirement since it may not be possible to readdress this within that period of time. Mr. Bishop agreed to waive the 60-day requirement. Mr. Patterson seconded Ms. Petersson's motion. Ms. Baker stated that if the applicant feels they can provide a plan and a legal description, the Commission could specify this coming back to the Commission on December 9. Ms. Schultze noted that there may not be time to provide the new plan and meet with the neighbors. Luis Valdez, 2151 Ponderosa Drive SW, addressed the Commission. He stated that the trees that provided a buffer have been removed. Mr. Valdez asked why this does not constitute spot zoning. Mr. Svenby explained that the R-1 and R-Ix are both considered low-density types of uses. He gave an example of spot zoning where a lot would be rezoned to M-1 in the middle of residential-zoned properties. Mr. Valdez asked why spot zoning was used as one of the recommendations. Mr. Svenby explained there is criteria that has to be looked at on all zone changes, to see if this is met. Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 23, 1998 I, Discussion ensued on whether this application will be tabled to a specific date. It was pointed out that it will not be heard before the City Council on December 7. Ms. Petersson amended her motion to reflect this Item be tabled to the December 9 meeting. Mr. Patterson seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 7-0. Ms. Wiesner reminded the people in attendance that because this is being tabled to a specific date, they will not receive notice in the mail of the hearing. Ms. Wiesner pointed out that the French Creek development that was mentioned earlier was lan area of sink holes next to a park before it was developed. OUTER BUSINESS t twate of Text Amendment#98.1 (Mining & Hillside Develooment): No'new information was presented. Location.for City Planning &Zoning Commission and Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Annual Dinner Meeting scheduled for January 11, 1999 The suggestion of having the meeting at the Radisson was brought up by staff. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Radisson Plaza Hotel would be a good location for the meeting.' g . Discussion ensued regarding a nominating committee for next year's officers. The nominating committee will prepare a slate of officers to be voted on at the annual meeting on January 11.' ADJOURN: Motion made by Ms.Wiesner to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Petersson. Mr. DeWltz, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Philip H. Wheek AICP Mr. Robert'QeWitz, Chair smi �.< . C:\cpzclCPZC1 doc ";. Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 9. 1998 of uses on the Land Ian and in order to use roperty at a higher density, a variance to the shorelan 'strict density and, a lot width standard for a 4-unit building in the shoreland dJ 'ct is neede ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT. This i request would not appear to be substantially detrimental to the other surroundi operties. A strip of land and a lake to the north buffer the property. The propos long Country Club Road will also buffer the property from the surroundin elop s. jMINIMUM VARIANCE: Th imum variance t would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would variance to the lot th standard for 4-unit buildings in the shoreland district and maximum permitted de . of 4 units per acre within the shoreland district. Mr. Suk called a five- inute break. TABLED ITEM: Type I11, Phase II Zoning District Amendment#98-16 by David T. Bishop to rezone approximately 3.34 acres of land of the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the R-1x (Mixed Single Family Extra) district. The property is platted as Outlot C. Pine Ridge Estates 3 a Subdivision and is located within the loop of Ponderosa Drive SW, immediately east of 18 Avenue SW. Mr. DeWitz returned as Chair of the meeting and called the.meeting back to order. Ms. Wiesner made a motion to remove Zoning District Amendment#98-16 by David T. Bishop from the table. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baker explained this item was tabled at the last meeting. She stated the applicant has presented an alternative proposal to the neighborhood and she suggested the applicant's consultant explain how they intend to proceed with their proposal. Representing David Bishop, Wade Dumond of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He explained that an alternative layout was provided to the neighbors, of which he presented a copy. Mr. Dumond noted that Mr. Bishop could not be in attendance this evening, but he wanted Mr. Dumond to address some issues relating to this application that were presented in the media. He explained that the cost of these townhomes will be between $190,000 and $210,000 per unit. Mr. Dumond noted that the cost of existing homes in the area was presented in the media, so he did some research and found that the tax records show the most expensive lot and home had a market value of$194,000, with a majority being under $150,000. He referred to the revisions on the new plan, and explained it now shows 3 single family homes fronting on Ponderosa Drive and 8 townhome units, pointing out they are revising their request to R-1 x to exclude the three single family lots. Mr. Dumond explained the access to the townhomes. Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 9. 1998 Gary Wendiand, 2439 Churchill Lane NE, addressed the Commission. He stated he is representing Denny Peterson, the developer of the surrounding Pine Ridge Estates. Mr. Wendiand explained that about a year ago Mr. Peterson was approached by Tom Hexum and Dave Bishop and they exchanged some land in the area, giving Mr. Bishop lots with access to Ponderosa Drive. At the same time Mr. Hexum and Mr. Bishop stated they would have the same covenants and restrictions as Pine Ridge Estates and they showed the Lillie house remaining. Mr. Peterson approved of that, and then he found out later that there would be 12 townhouses with five of them on Ponderosa Drive, which may him very upset. Mr. Wendland stated he has talked to neighbors and they didn't' feel this fits in with the development in general. He noted that Mr. Peterson is strongly against this zone change because it doesn't fit in with the surrounding area. Mr. Wendiand commented that the figures Mr. Dumond presented for lot costs and property values do not make sense, and he pointed out that there are five new houses being constructed in Pine Ridge Estates that average over$300,000 each. Mike Sebesta. 2221 Ponderosa Drive SW, addressed the Commission. He addressed the three criteria from the staff report, stating his response to the criteria: 1. Rezoning is not in the public interest because the families in the neighborhood are not in favor of the rezoning. 2. The permitted uses in the R-1x district are not compatible to the adjacent zoning. The allowed uses in the R-1 x district are incompatible aesthetically and they do not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. 3. This is a form of spot zoning and the City is responsible for ensuring the best interest of the land and owes its residents consistent and compatible land use management. Mr. Sebesta stated that for the above reasons, the neighbors do not support the zone change. Greg Gaspar, 2212 Ponderosa Drive SW, addressed the Commission. He explained the location of his property and stated he is concerned about safety issues caused by the increased traffic from a single driveway serving eight townhomes. Mr. Gaspar also expressed concern over the townhomes becoming rental property, which will reduce the price of the single family homes in the neighborhood and bring in a transient population. He reminded the Commission that the residents of Pine Ridge Estates built their homes with the covenants stating the homes would only be single family homes. i Miguel Jimenez, 2119 Ponderosa Drive SW, addressed the Commission. He stated that Mr. Bishop's political status has the potential to influence the Commission. Mr. DeWitz disagreed and stated he did not think that any of the Commission members were politically active. Mr. Jimenez stated that Mr. Bishop has changed his proposal several times, and he asked where the proof was that there were structural problems with the Lillie house. He expressed concern about decreasing property values. Mr. Jimenez commented that residents of the neighborhood are up against a state representative who is supposed to represent them, but now they face loosing their lives' savings. He stated that Mr. Bishop wants to break even at the Page 9 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 9. 1998 community's expense. He reiterated his concern that Mr. Bishop's political power may influence the Commission. Mr. DeWitz stated the Commission will not be thinking about the dollars involved with this in making their decision because dollars don't come into the zoning decisions. Tony Anderson, 2236 Ponderosa Drive SW, addressed the Commission. He stated he sent a letter to all the Commission members regarding the issue of spot zoning. He noted there was no reference to density levels relating to spot zoning in the Zoning Ordinance, but that Mr. Svenby had told him it is based density. Mr. Anderson stated that the City Attorney told him that it was not based on density levels, so there are conflicting answers regarding spot zoning. He asked for clarification. Mr. Wheeler explained that the land use plan sets forth desired densities of development, and the property in question is in a low-density residential development. He stated the Land Use Plan sets forth policy that the residential uses should encourage a mixture of styles, types, and costs of residential development in residential areas for a number of reasons. He noted that mixed use development in general is considered to be a good idea for reasons such as reducing the need for trips, for providing affordable housing, avoiding concentration of low- income areas. Mr. Wheeler noted that spot zoning amounts to zoning that is incompatible for reasons of being different in the intensity of development. He related a court case that went to the State Supreme Court that involved a dispute about whether a particular situation was spot zoning, and noted that reasonable people may disagree about what constitutes spot zoning. City Attorney Terry Adkins, addressed the Commission. He referred to the court case Mr. Wheeler spoke of and stated that at the time the court defined spot zoning as "Spot zoning applies to zoning changes typically limited to small plots of land which establish a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and create an island of non-conf6rming use within a larger zoning district and which dramatically reduce the value for uses specified in the zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or the abutting property." Pat Halsey, 2102 Ponderosa Drive SW, addressed the Commission. He stated he is an architect and feels that Mr. Bishop, as a developer, knows he made a bad decision and he should have to live with it. David Christopherson, 2241 Ponderosa Drive, addressed the Commission. He commented that between the media and Mr. Bishop he hears conflicting things. He also expressed concern about the safety issues that the increased traffic will bring. Randy Shekeruk, 2230 Ponderosa Drive SW, addressed the Commission. He asked if the property could be divided into 3 big lots for$350,000 to$400,000 homes. Ms. Wiesner answered yes, and stated it could also be one lot, or two. Mr. Shekeruk suggested developing this property as larger lots and eliminating the driveway. Ms. Petersson pointed out that they are simply looking at the appropriateness of rezoning the property to the R-1x zoning district. 4;!O EPage 10 City Planninia and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 9. 1998 Bill Schmidt, 2237 Ponderosa Drive SW, addressed the Commission. He referred to the three single family lots Mr. Bishop included in his alternate proposal. He pointed out that they are 80 x 100 feet and the standard for the a'rea is 80 x 150 feet, the lots will look out over townhomes., and they will not be marketable. Mr. Schmidt stated that if this area is rezoned to R-Ix, Mr. Bishop will be back to rezone the rest. Dolly Crooks, 2150 Ponderosa Drive SW, addressed the Commission. She stated she has lived in Rochester for 30 years and raised four kids. She explained that when she and her husband finally saved enough money to have their dream home built, they looked into the I neighborhood before hand and it was zoned R-1 and had restrictive covenants. She asked why there are zoning districts in the first place if they can be changed. Mr. Crooks stated she is concerned about decreasing property values and increased traffic. Ed Hruska, City Council Member and 1st Ward Representative, 202124 Y2 Lane SE, addresse:d the Commission. He complimented the neighbors on the good job they have done representing themselves. He commended Mr. Bishop for all he has done for the City. Council Member Hruska stated he is a little disappointed that Mr. Bishop did not hold a second neighborhood meeting, and that dropping off a drawing to the residents is not an effective way to communicate. He mentioned criteria C on page 10, which involves spot zoning, and stated he feels it does constitute spot zoning and commented that this decision is an easy one and the Commission members should vote to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Tom Crooks, 2150 Ponderosa Drive SW, addressed the Commission. He explained that the first home they purchased in Rochester had R-1 zoning to the west and they thought only single family homes would be built, but despite the objections of the neighbors, it was rezoned for multi-family dwellings. He stated that for that reason, when they built their dream home, they were determined to find a place where they wouldn't have to worry about that again and were convinced they would not see that happen in this neighborhood. Mr. Crooks noted their house was appraised at$195,000 two years ago and they have since added a $20,000 sunroom, and he pointed out there are many homes more expensive than theirs in the neighborhood. He li thanked the neighbors for addressing their concerns so well., Gary Wendland readdressed the Commission. He asked if manufactured homes would be allowed in the R-1x zoning district. Mr. DeWitz stated they are allowed with a conditional use permit. Tony Anderson readdressed the Commission. He stated that the court case Mr. Wheeler referred to did not involve a complete island of different zoning, but this case does and it Is a definite situation of spot zoning. Wade Durriond readdressed the Commission. He noted that the spot zoning issue has more implications than just this particular case and stated that other zone changes are based on underlying land use and the underlying land use here is low density. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. DeWitt closed the public hearing. Ms. Wiesner stated she doesn't think this is spot zoning. She noted that Mr. Bishop purchased I this property before the change in the zoning ordinance creating the R-1 x zoning district,and l Page 11 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 9. 1998 that Mr. Bishop could have built duplexes in the R-1 district without coming before the Planning Commission. She explained that since his site plan shows four-plexes, and not duplexes, she will vote against this. Mr. Wheeler clarified that these townhomes are considered attached single-family homes that would have been allowed as a performance residential development in the R-1 district before the R-1 x zoning district was created. Ms. Baker noted it could have been reviewed and approved at the staff level because it is an approvable level of development. Mr. Wheeler explained the types of performance residential developments that would not have needed to go before the Commission in the old R-1 zoning district. Ms. Wiesner thanked them for the correction. Ms. McGowan stated that she feels this does not meet criteria "b" because the neighborhood is unanimous in feeling this is not compatible. She commented that it is inappropriate to put townhouses in that inner circle of backyards. Ms. Petersson stated she feels this is a good project, but the neighborhood should have some say, and because they are against this, she can't support it. Ms. Wiesner asked Mr. Adkins if a person purchases a parcel of land under one zoning district and the zoning law is changed, do they have a right to develop based on the zoning at the time of purchase. Mr. Adkins answered no, and explained that Minnesota law says there is no vested right to the continued zoning classification. Mr. Cevera stated it seems this does involve a question of spot zoning and does not seem to be compatible to the integrity of the neighborhood, as indicated by the City Council minutes of October 6, 1997, and by the neighbors, so he will not support this rezoning. Mr. Patterson commented that the last time this issue came before them, he thought the developer was going to meet with the neighbors, which hasn't happened. He stated he will vote against this based on his feelings that R-1 x doesn't address the zoning needs that are in front of them. Mr. DeWitz noted he doesn't believe that R-1 x zoning should be located next to any single- family zones without a good-sized buffer. Ms. Petersson made a motion to deny Zoning District Amendment#98-16 by David T. Bishop, based on the finding that the proposed use Is incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Cevera seconded the motion. The motion cabled 8-0. Mr. DeWitz called a five minute break. c iil 1 � '�� ! D1 �� �� r � �� ��'I 0 'III �` I �'� o ��� � � `! o ,` ''i� � I, (J '�� �� �I II REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETINJ467 DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING 10 -3 EM DESCRIPTION: Site Planning Permit by Bouquet Builders to 1) amend General PREPARED BY: —Development Plan#129,currently known as the Mohn General Development Plan and Brent Svenby proposed to be known as"Avalon Cove". The applicant proposes to change the Plan from Planner Single family detached development to a townhome/condominium development with private roadways; and (2)variance request#98-30 to exceed the density and number of units per lineal footage within the Shoreland Overlay District. The property located along the north side of Country Club Road, east of Cascade Creek and west of the Mayo surface parking facility. December 29, 1998 City Plannina and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission considered this request for a site planning permit at their meeting on December 9, 1998. This site planning permit combines a request for an amendment to a General Development Plan and a request for a variance. The amendment to the GDP is required to allow a townhome/condominium development. The variance required is to exceed the density and number of units per lineal footage within the Shoreland Overlay District. Representing Bouquet Builders, Bill Tointon of McGhie& Betts, addressed the Commission. He reviewed the background on the property and the approvals the applicant is seeking. Two neighbors addressed the Commission about the project who live in the Interlachen Subdivision. The majority of the Interlachen Homeowners did approve of this development, but did have some suggestions. 40he PlanningCommission reviewed this request according to the criteria listed in Sections 61.215 Criteria for Approval of a q 9 ( General Development Plan) and 60.417 (Findings for Variances). The commission found that this request meets those criteria, and recommends approval of this permit subject to the following conditions: Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve an amendment to General Development Plan #129, to be known as Avalon Cove,with five conditions set on the original GDP and five additional staff-suggested conditions, noting the second sentence of additional conditional number 1 be deleted. Ms Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carved 7- 0. The commission made the following findings to the criteria listed in Section 61.215: 1. The adopted Land Use Plan identifies this property as"Medium Density Residential" and "Flood Prone". The zoning map identifies the property as R-1 (Mixed Single Family). The applicant has petitioned to amend the zoning on this property from the R-1 district to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. Although the site is designated for "Medium Density Residential" types of uses, rezoning the property to the R-2 zoning district will be more restricted than a zoning district that allows medium density types of uses. The proposed land uses are in accord with the adopted Land Use Plan and zoning map. i 2. The proposed street pattern and access locations appear to be appropriate to serve the property under consideration. The roadways are proposed to be private streets and will need to be evaluated when the site plan for a Performance Residential Development is submitted. The eastern access to the site is a joint access with the Mayo Foundation and the applicant will work Public Works in the design of the connection to the Mayo property and CSAH 34. 3. The Plan provides for facilities that are generally consistent with planned capital improvements. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Page 2 RCA i December42771998 4. Utilities are available or will be extended to serve this property. 5. The general drainage issue in this area is being reviewed and addressed as part of this GDP process. Specific'drainage* and erosion control measures will need to be reviewed at such time that specific land subdivision and development of the property occurs. Depending on the grading of the property, an additional sediment basin may be required in the Southwest corner of the property. 6. The development standards regarding Performance Residential Developments will be reviewed in more detailed at the time a Performance Residential Development plan is submitted for the property. The shoreland provisions,which apply to a portion of this property, required a minimum lot width and a maximum density within the shoreland district. The applicant has requested a variance to these standards to decrease minimum lot width and to allow an overall density of the development to be approximately 6.6 units/acre. Original Conditions: 1. A combination of cash and land dedication will be required to meet the parkland dedication requirements. 2. The controlled access along 2"d street SW and any required turn lanes will be shown on the final plat. 3. The applicant should work with Public Works in the design of the connection to the Mayo property and Second Street along the east portion of the property. 4. The applicant coordinate with the Olmsted County SWCD and Public Works Department on the design of the sedimentation basins. 5. The shoreland adjacent to the westerly sedimentation basin area and lots 3 and 4 be stabilized. Additional Conditions: S. The Developer shall be responsible to provide right turn lanes along Country Club Road/CSAH 34 at the access points to the property. 7. The development be investigated for the present of wetlands and the necessary applications be submitted to the LGU. The applicant has indicated that they are preparing a no loss certificate for submittal to the LGU. 8. Depending on the grading of the property,an additional sediment basin may be required in the southwest comer of the property. 9. The developer provides a written request to the Public Works Department if they wish to participate in the City's plan for storm water management. Detention ponds are not shown on the property. 10. That the sanitary sewer be connected to the southern portion of the existing 8" line along the east property line. Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve Variance Request #98-30 by Bouquet Builders, with Staff-suggested findings. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS: There would appear to be extraordinary circumstance that would apply to this property that would not apply generally to other properties in the neighborhood. With the irregular shape of the property, the shoreland district covers a large portion of the site restricting the density of the pro I rty. The shoreland district only allows a density of 4 unitslacre, while the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property for "medium Density Residential" types of uses, the shoreland district regulations restrict this parcel from being used at the higher density,closer to the designation on the Land Use Plan. Wit 0 Performance Residential Development, the lot size is usually just the building width, but there will a open space between the units,depending on the PRD setbacks. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property. The property is designated of"Medium Density Residential"types of uses on the Land Use Plan and In order to 'I� Page 3 RCA December 29, 1998 use the property at higher density a variance to the shoreland district density and to the lot width standard for a 4 unit building in the shoreland district is needed. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENTAL: This variance request would not appear to be substantially detrimental to the other surrounding property. A strip of land and a lake to the north buffers the property. The proposed pond along Country Club Road will also buffer the property from the surrounding developments. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to the lot width standard for 4 unit buildings in the shoreland district and the maximum permitted density of 4 units/acres within the shoreland district. Council Action Needed: The City Clerk scheduled this Type III, Phase Il, Site Planning Permit for a public hearing as required by the Land Development Manual. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of this site on Thursday, December 24, 1998 and a notice of the hearing was published in the Friday, December 25, 1998, edition of the Rochester Post-Bulletin. 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing according to the procedures of Paragraphs 60.650 and 60.651 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Site Planning Permit combines an application for an amendment to a General Development Plan and a variance. Although considered simultaneously, each portion of the application is subject to the same criteria and findings as if it were an individual application. In this case,the Council may approve,approve with conditions or deny the amendment to the General Development Plan, and may approve, approve with conditions,or deny the variance. The Council must make findings of fact as a basis for the decision. The Council's decision on the amendment to the General Development Plan must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Land Development Manual. See staff report for the applicable criteria. 3. The Council's decision on the variance must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.417 of the Land Development Manual. See report for the applicable criteria. 4. If the Council wishes to proceed with the amendment to the General Development Plan and the variance as requested, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution that can be adopted. i Attachments: /Y 1. Staff Report dated December 4, 1998 73 2. Minutes of December 9, 1998 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Clerk • 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: • 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant:This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on January 4, 1999 in the Council 1 Board Chambers in :�,% the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. 6. McGhie&Betts* Inc. y � r16Tt1 s= Ou4ot,. "no d 14TH ST HW r r .Me A. 97H ST 8TH ST I sr a 1/2 9h4 ST h T Pt lH ST 6 � - E Pl b� i Gi CA 4TH � II JRD z� �2M._. ST 2H sr �-- L.cx�►Ti a�1 WW tST Si ST >M� COOV Q 1st ST 1STIST _ r no si Silt Ptw Y,f rs ST sw Imo. aw w v I IT s c«n�du St�, ♦TH ST STH sr ST 51 ON ST $1k It 7 7m sT 81H 8TH i y HOLWW 4* 5w r Oi LN ! t 4 W SIN + KAl iN I >t4 SYf 3 � S ' ttttt � � I W ' ► {gyp !af t OR ON LN �. t MS OR I C(�y� '' S s► OR '` Y SLIM OR t r 4.� � 3 y j I � j .. % u4 sue►' { Rau sw M LY �� 01,104/99 15:48 FAX 507 287 2275 ROCII-OUI PLANNING DEI'f. - CITY CLERK 002 1.< 1r JHi 144.- L'.;$'V':1 11U; M UINN Ktwta1t.4iZ) IL,- NV: k�7t1 #232e2 RGE: 242 Memorandum Er hiinnYs�in DNR Waters sib 2300 Silver Creek Road NE Phone (5071:) NF ArifLral Reztojr.-es Rochester,UN 55906 Fax (507)285-7144 xa To: Brent Svenby, Planner Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department From: Bob B ezek,Area Hydrologist Date: January 4, 1999 Subject: General Development Plan#129,Avalon Cove,Bouquet Builders DNR Waters has been notified that the Rochester City Counal will be giving consideration to several issues surrounding the Avalon Cove development this evening. The area in question is a designated shoreland management area for which the City has adopted certain zoning standards approved by the State. In giving consideration to the applicant's request to increase the density of dwelling sites the Council should be aware that standards outlined in the City ordinance are already more lenient than what is recommended in the State Shoreland Management Rules. If the Council determines that a hardship is present to justify an increase in density the Department would not take issue with their decision. It would also be appreciated if the Council would also give consideration to the following;that the majority of stormwater runoff enter treatment ponds prior to the lake, that a vegetation plan be required that provides partial screening of building sites and parking areas, and that water access planned for the development be consolidated to I location. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me at the above address or telephone number. By fax c(e-mail/fax): Jim Cooper,Regional Hydrologist 13M Tointon,McGhie&Betts 1'ZOWCOLNTIE S�OLMSTEMCITM'MOCIM STrZ\S1IIUM\AVLNC0V1-:.%?D