The Big Picture
Regarding the Preliminary Plat for Pavilion Estates
International Properties LLC purchased a relatively narrow strip of land -- with steep hills, wetlands, Cascade Creek, mature forests and a large great blue heron rookery -- that its owners knew full well had substantial challenges for development. They knew this for more than a year before they bought the property, and they were reminded of this again and again throughout the development approval process.
As Olmsted County Planning Department wrote in a letter to Rochester Township on March 18, 2021: “The subject property contains multiple unique and extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as extreme variation in topography and the narrowness of the property … These circumstances can be viewed as being a practical difficulty to development on this specific property.”
International Properties LLC bought the property anyway, and designed a 10-lot subdivision for the property that fails repeatedly to comply with township ordinances and comprehensive plan.
International Properties LLC could have designed a subdivision that is in full compliance with township ordinances and comprehensive plan. But they wanted to squeeze in more houses, so they designed this one (see map of Pavilion Estates below).
Now they are asking our township to grant them a shocking number – eight! --of variances so that they can build their ten-house development. (Note: A variance is a request to deviate from ordinances and allow the developer to meet lower development standards than is normally required. Variances are typically granted only if the related project brings significant benefits to township residents.)
According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, variances should not be granted when the landowner creates the need for a variance with a subdivision design that fails to comply with the ordinances, even if enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties (Moore v. Comm’r Morrison Cnty. Bd. f Adjustment, 969 N.W.2nd 86, Minn App. 2021).
International Properties LLC is requesting eight variances because:
1. The planned private road is not wide enough and not adequate as a public road.
County Subdivision Ordinance Section 1205.2 requires a right of way width of 66 feet. The private road easement proposed for this Project is only 45 feet wide.
County Subdivision Ordinance Section 1205.7 D requires all subdivisions to include public streets that access each lot. It reads: “Every lot shall lie adjacent to a public street, thus providing access for fire protection, utilities and other necessary services.”
This Project violates both of these ordinances.
2. Their private road is too long. It exceeds the 500-foot maximum length.
The length of roads is important, particularly for emergency vehicles to have access to homes in a timely fashion in the event of an emergency. If roads are too long, it’s hard to get tanker and other trucks on the road, or back them out of an area and get to the hospital in life saving time.
County Subdivision Ordinance Section 1205.1 E reads: “streets designed and laid out so as to have an end permanently closed shall not exceed five-hundred (500) feet in length.” This Project includes a dead-end road of over 1,500 feet, including Pavilion Lane SW and the connecting Boulder Creek Lane SW.
3. The cul-de-sac is not wide enough. The minimum radius required by county ordinance is 60 feet. The radius of the cul-de-sac on this Project is 45 feet.
The same is true for cul-de-sac size. It takes a certain diameter to turn around large fire trucks. Too small of a cul-de-sac creates the need for a several point turn for trucks that causes a bottle neck and delay in getting vehicles in and out of an emergency setting.
County Subdivision Ordinance Section 1205.1 F reads: “Turnarounds shall be provided at the permanently closed end of all streets and shall have a minimum turnaround radius of sixty (60) feet.”
4. A private roadway needs to meet a 10% grade. The developer of this Project currently faces 18% slopes, and hopes through grading to reach a slope of 14%.
“This will be very difficult to accomplish,” writes TCPA administrator Roger Ihrke on March 15, 2021. “The widening of the road and flattening the grade would disturb a large area. Economically and ecologically extending this road does not seem likely or beneficial.”
County Subdivision Ordinance Section 1205.2 sets the maximum grade of slope for streets at 10%. This Project violates this ordinance.
All of these variance requests regarding the road matter because what typically happens in the township is that these roads start out as private. But at some point, when the development is completed and road repairs start to cost an exorbitant amount, the township is asked to take it over. Now the township is footing the bill for a sub-standard road -- a bill that gets passed onto taxpayers that costs everyone more money in the long run -- all so that up front a developer can ignore the county standard of road building (in grade, in length, in cul-de-sac radius, in right of way) to put more money in their pockets.
5. Lots 9 and 10 do not meet the minimum lot width at the street line of 120 feet. Their lot widths are 50 feet and 75 feet.
County Subdivision Ordinance Section 1205.7 requires that each lot in a subdivision served by private sewerage have a minimum lot width at the street line of 120 feet. Lot 9 has only about 40% of the required width, while lot 10 has only about 60%.
6. Eight of the lots on this Project are too small. They do not comply with the 3.5 acre minimum average for lots.
The County Subdivision Ordinance, the Township Comp Plan, and the Township Subdivision Ordinance all require subdivisions in this zone to have an average of 3.5 acres per lot. Lots 1 through 8 of this Project are all less than 2.3 acres, and the average for the Project is less than 3 acres, given that lots 9 and 10 are almost 6 acres (most of which is unbuildable wetlands).
Early on in the development approval process, the county suggested there be “no more than 8 lots” in Pavilion Estates to accommodate the county standard. The developer continues to ignore this. The township must not.
7. The Project’s “wildlife corridor” (dedication of public space) is in violation of the ordinance.
Developments are supposed to set aside land, including a minimum percentage of buildable quality land, that wildlife can use to get to water, food and other natural areas. The wildlife corridor for Pavilion Estates should have run the length of the land from north to south, and be located on the west side of the property. That would have encompassed the rookery and allowed wild animals to travel from the woods to the water. Instead, they destroyed the natural area on the west side and say that the flood zone on the north end is their wildlife corridor. There’s no buildable land in this proposed wildlife corridor so they are violating the rules. They are also violating the spirit and purpose of the wildlife corridor by putting it on junk land in the corner where it is not very useful to wildlife.
8. Township development standards may be more restrictive, but not less, than the County standards. This project falls below the minimum standards of the county and therefore is in violation of Minn. Stat. 394.33.
A further reason to deny the Pre Plat is because the appeal of the General Development Plan for Pavilion Estates (Case No. 55-CV-21-7113) is awaiting trial in Olmsted County District Court. We believe that the township has an obligation to let this legal process complete, rather than determining the fate of this property prematurely, a fate that may be reversed by the courts at considerable expense for the township.
* * *
And beyond all of this, is the fact that …
Over the past two months, six hundred and eighty Rochester area residents joined together to sign a petition – which you all have been given, with 25 pages of signatures attached – asking that NONE of these variances be granted.
The petition states that these variances “serve only to advance the interests of a single developer at the expense of the environment, Township planning, County Planning, and the concerns of the citizens in the township.”
This is a HUGE level of citizen engagement. Please advocate for the wishes of the majority of your constituents.
There is likely a development that International Properties LLC can build on this property, perhaps with fewer houses – but not THIS one!
Please attend the Rochester Township Planning & Zoning Committee meeting on Tuesday, June 14, 7pm, Rochester Township Hall, where committee will take public comments on the developer’s “pre plat”. You can email your comments to this committee by contacting Randy Staver, Rochester Township Clerk.
Map of proposed Pavilion Estates development