The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.a. Presentation by Dakota County HRA on Senior Housing Sites in Rosemount CITY OF ROSEblOiJNT EXECUT2VE SUbIl2ARY FOR ACTION PORT AUTHORITY COMMISSION MEETING DA'I'E: OCTOBER 5, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: DAKOTA COUNTY HRA PRESENTATION AGENDA SECTION: ON SENIOR HOUSING SITE NEW BUSINESS PREPARED BY: JOHN MILLER, AGENDA �� ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR A ATTACI�IENTS: OCTOBER 5, 19 9 3 MEMO FROM THE AP , OVE BY '' �' ...,._ . DAKOTA COUNTY HRA , �� a jf �f {' Tracie Chamberlin and Diane Nordquist of the Dakota County HR.A�_will be present to review with you the site analysis prepared by them` and Victor Zeuthen, the HRA' s architect. As you will see, the two sites analyzed are the Burma site (north of Jerry Fluegel) and the Cameo site (Baptist Church) . Chamberlin and Nordquist will explain their recommendation that the Cameo site be pursued. RECOb�lENDED ACTION: None. Discussion item only. PORT AUTHORITY ACTION: _ I � � / DAKOTA COUNTY Housing &Redevelopment Authority 6iz-4z3-4aoo � 2496-145th St.W.� Rosemount,MN 55068�T.D.D.612-423-8182�FAX 612-423-8180 MEMORANDUM TO: Port Authority, Gity of Rosemount FROM: Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority DATE: October 5, 1993 SUBJECT: Two Potential Rosemount Senior Housing Sites The Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is considering two sites in Rasemount for a forty (40) unit senior housinq development. One site is located on Burma Avenue between 146th Street and 147th Street, the other site is located on Cameo Avenue between 14bth Street and Lower 147th Street. When evaluating locations for senior housing the HRA uses some of the following selection criteriac 1. Proximity to community services, health care, and retail facilities 2. Architectural criteria and site layout 3 . Cast of site acquisition, relocation, demolition, and property owners willingness to sell Attached are preliminary budgets estimating acquisition costs for both sa�tes. Also attached is a copy of the report complied by Victar Zeuthen, the HRA's architectural consultant who also put together preliminary site plans. The HRA has contacted all property owners within both sites to determine current interested in selling their property. We received the fallowing results: BURMA SITE: Out of a total of eight (8) property owners: 4 - Interested in selling (l property currently being marketed) 4 - Not interested in selling CAMEO SITEs Al1 ten property owners have expressed an interest in selling. Depending on which scheme is selected, a total of seven properties would be acquired. "AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" Page 2 October 5, 1993 Senior Housing Sites Based on the preliminary budgets, owners interest in sel.ling and information presented in the arehitectural report, the HRA recommends the Cameo site be pursued over the Burma site. We are excited to start a new senior development in the City of Rosemount. Please feel free to contact Diane Nordquist at 423-8112 with any questions regarding these two sites. PRELIMINARY BUDGET$ FOR ROSEMOUNT $ENIOR SITE ACQUISITION These are preliminary budgets for acquisition, relocation and clearance. These figures reflect total estimated costs to acquire and clear each site. BURMA SITE SCHEME A Estimated Estimated Estimated Street Vacated/ Acquisition Relocation Demolition Util. Relocated Total $493, OOQ $120, 000 $ 40, 500 $220, 000 $873, 500* BURMA SITE SCHEME B Estimated Estimated Estimated Acquisition Relocation Demolition Total $358, 000 $ 90, 000 $ 30, 500 $478,500* +++++++++++++++++++++++++�+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CAMEO SITE SCHEME #1 (NORTH) Estimated Estimated Estimated Acquisition Relocation Demolition Total $458,200 $ 85, Q00 $ 35, 000 $578, 200 CAMEO SITE SCHEME �`2 (SOUTH) Estimated Estimated Estimated Acquisition Relocation Demolition Total $473, 000 $ 72, 000 $ 35, 000 $580, 400 * Both schemes involue unwilling sellers. Estimated costs do nat include cost of condemnation proceedings or cost of potential going concern claim by neighboring business. • � . � � GFAAv �T �— � �,. � � � � � !� _ _ � r---1 � � . t �, � _...�I . � � - - . �� i�� . .. i . � � .. � . . � � ' � � Y � '� � ..�. � . . ' � . � � . . � �\� . . . � . . .. � . . � -�1�'�" , �� . � � � � . . � � � � � . . . . ' . . . . - k _ � i ' qc-42 , � � :� - ��1°�. - —- � ��. � �� , � �r` , - , -r� t� �� ' � � � y�r:�-..r1� ,,,,�,�. � oC � ' � , _ � . 1 � P .�. 1 / , _ Tt"t.t�tv�?_�..+�-I-�-- �V I -- � `�_ r..�f�� •►pY►�� fl�JKS � � �9; —� �ro�s � , il / ' � ` Ifo tMt�,l��. � `� ��s, —G taw�Mw� s � �� k 4�o uurr�e�n`. '.�Je��G��`�'�tz� s '` '�' i � o , , � � � ; .�..�.__: �, .. : _ � ��"Gii�M� � ' �-• s � . V/sCA�rEs livan,l sT. .t?. � � r''�' � � , ��--��T7�� r /. � i I ��-s,': � ��j� / � ' � °SEN1�(1NT C-�`K°T'A C° 4�tZt°� �1dc751t�}C� STdt�"'� --�-- t"3`�o, � � �K�'°� 7�t� �..51�1 ��isj=� � � I � � � � � ,�- . . r---► y i t ; L�. L_ 1 ; P�wk►'".� � l.,...y.�..► ' � �. i_ _, : _ _ ,...� L..�.�1 �—� � � .-, ,-,. r' '- � ; ` r�, -� . , , � .� ... �. __a' � , e • . �. � i � _ , ,, o �,/,� � �. _ i �/ �, ��t� �� t�►�-r I�a�m cs �t� �sc� 5�rv�r r� �_�� lt� �vt� D�s ; ry�2a�i� ..�'?"F��,� � � � � � � ,�� 1� � t �� --��- � � ` �` �"'� �--- �. � � �.�.-.� �+�.. . �.�.�..�.�: � � ...�-.--� ....-. ��...-- ...... .�...� . � � ... � . . . . � . .. . . . � : �� . �. . � � � � � �� - � � � � � .. � � � . �.� � . . � � . � �.� (� . . � � . .� � � . . � . - . �� . � � � I � � �' �=�`��-" �. ,� i� � �� l ; ��_ i � �� , � � � � �f' � ,��, ,,, .�.._ _J � � � (//Y�TS "" � °� �� w�r � I � � i � '�' I r - - � . � . � I � _ ��_.� r • . . . .. . 1 � • • � � � � � 1 �vz_ f �L ( � ...._ ' �r��cr� �,,.,, ,...... .- _ ._.,_,�,.,..,_. � L � a��T- `��i�5 �� c.,. G°� ,. �. 1r ��-N .�aNrr� �� ,� ��,� ,� . �� yr c �c �'�c�rH-��v ,o,��c.,�I 3 �f y� ._,, ��'� C'• �� , f_� � � gp �� ' � � ' �� i � � � l ; ;� � ; - 1 1� � : � � . �.r. .t-�r. �� l�� .�.r ^..� rr. �..�� r�. �.��. �'.� .�'�'� �.�.r��.�..r �n.�..�+ �. . . . .. . � � � . . . . . . . � �. �.. � � . . . � � � .� ..� ` � . . .� . . . � . � � �� ..r-. ._._ ._, ...-__.__ --.. I � 4 �: ��r�� ~ j ��r. � l 1 � � I � " A � l I � � 1 � � � �-+ r ..--+�,'--+ �-+ ..... •----5 � � r I � • l . . r �. � . � . . � . . . � . � � � . � . � � .. � 1 � . � � , , ; I � 4 . �� 1 I { . • � + . � . . . .. . . � . . .. . . .M � . . . . � � . . . . . � ..• �� . . � . � � �.�.�.,. � f�.-f�, . . ( • �x� , , , s t � �v�� ,� �z �° ��q�l� �7�F..,��'_ �.�" �.... _....�. ��c��r ��r�� j� °�� GaNc.�t'?'"' f�'��l � d,v�rs ...---- � - -- - �,,�� 4�.�� L 3 t„� �'?' �r�c�,� .�t 4�� ,c�'��v / �� '�--� G r��r�'' h��- � ,_ ' . _ . ' ...-- • t , , ., , : .. . , . . . . . . . . . , _. . .: _ . ,, •. � , _ „ , . , r ,_ . . . ; . _ ; . . . : '. - _ _ _ ,: ,, . . . , . - . "'_'` . . . . , . � . . , � ` ... � . , , . . � . . _ , , , , , . , .. '. . . . , ., _ . • . . _ . � - . , -, , ,.. � _ . . _". _ ..- , . _ . , . , .. . . . . • . ., , ' . � , . � . . � .. � �. . - ', _ � . � . . . i. r � - . . . . , ` . � . . , � . � ' - � � - � � . � . .- � . � . . � - � . . � . . • . . . . ' . .. , . .� � ._ � . � - . . , : � � - _ .. . � . .. . ;�� . ._�. . � . � . . . . . ; - . _ ; . U � : � T , :o _ .R � . , � .� _ � . � . � �� E u . T H E: �( � . � : . ". � � � � � - , - . :; . . . . . , . .. : . _ :.;ti . . - DES � IG `�N � � , . �. , . -- . . . , . , . � . �' Ms. Dianne. Nordquist • � - • . • � DAKOTA COUNTY $RA � � ' � . . - , • � 2496 145t Street West : � ' . . , . Rosemount. MN" 55:063 � _ . • ' _ • • � RE: R�SEMOUI�T SENIOR'S� SITE ASSESSMENT ' ' , , . . . , , �Dear Dianne: - . � , . 1 ` -Enclos�d please find the numerical assessment of_ the .three , � schemes for the Burma �Site and the two schemes fo'r the Cameo - Site. I beiieve these catagories fairly corisider the issues � . with regard to' developing a 40 + unit senior's pro�ect. on the�.e , • two locations. As always, existing soil conditions tand soil ' � , contamination near the railroad) are very. importarnt variables � � � which can only be quanified with complete testing and a soils � , � report. . . . . � , . . � If I can be of further assistance in this matter, . or if :you �_ • � � would 1ike. me to meet with the City to present this, I will . � be happy to do so.. If you have any questions or comments, please � - j-ust call � . incerel . . . " , � . � - � -- . VICTOR E EUTHEN - ' - ' . • . :. � . _ . , . . , . � �3509 VtNCENT AVE S . . � • ' MINNfAPOUS, MN. 55410 . ' , � . TELEPHONE 61� 926 �06� . � . � 2 August 1993 RE: Scheme Analysis for ROSEMOUNT SENIOR HOUSING SITES This report summarizes the five schemes presented to the HRA in reports dated 16 October 1992, 28 March 1993, and a quantitative analysis submitted in July 1993. HOUSING BUILDING TYPE: As with other HRA senior's projects, the programrned building assumed for this study is as follows: 40-42 units of housing,� one bedroom units, � two bedroom units. Three stary wood frame Type IIz construction with fu]:1 fire protection. Double loaded corridors {units on both sides of the corridor) . Lounge, Dining, Kitchen Facilities, Community Spaces, Laundry. Fully handicapped �ccessable Elevator service to all levels. Management Office on Site. Full underground one level enclosed parking garage accessable by elevator to the c�ther floors of the building, approx. 20 cars. Full security system for all areas. Maintenance free exterior of primarily brick with metal siding accents to help with the scale of the building. Elevator will be centrally iocated. Preliminary cost budget is $43,000-$48,000 / unit. This building program has been found to give us simply the most building for the dollar. The 40+ unit size is necessary for management efficiency. The double loaded corridor is necessary to accomplish the parking garage below. Enclosed paZking is an excellent amenity for seniors. We do not want to exceed three stories in height for both scale and construction type. EXISTING BURMA SITE CUNDITIONS: The site for the first three schemes of this study is bounded by South Robert 'Traii (HW# 3) on the west, Cedar Street, and Maple street on the north and south respectively, and the railroad ROW on the east. Burma Street runs N-S through the site area.The weSterly 150 ' of the block along South Robert Tr�il is primarily commercial / retail and to the south of Maple Street, industrial eievators and storage served by the railroad. The rail service is approx. 20 slow moving trains per day. the site slopes gently 10 ' from the NW corner to the SE corner, There are approx. 6-10 trees on the site which should be con5idered far saving. A11 three schemes in�olve the removal of the car wash, metal storage facility, and some older homes, to prepare the site for senior housing. BURMA SITE- SCHEME A: This scheme vacates Burma Street with an access Cul du sac to the north. It also saves existing single family homes to the north. The scheme was deveioped to stay as far away as possible from the se�vice station on the block, where noise and night time activity will be disxuptive. The SE wing of the building is turned perpendicular to the railroad ROW for better orientation for those units. Surface parking and enclosed �garage entrance ramp are to the `east as -a buffer between the railroad, A patio outside the main eommunity and dining facility is on the south' with good sunlight. There is ` - a large pine tree here that should be saved as an amenity €or this outside space. There is also the possibility ' for a visitor south entrance with vehicle drop off. BURMA SITE- SCHEME B: This scheme allows far Burma Street t:o continue through. To accomplish this, parking will bee accross the street or to the north. A wall enclosed exterior patio to the west will provide some measure of privacy. Enclosed garage parking access ranp is to the south �ust to the north of the existing row of trees. The ndrth wing of the building is turned on an east/west orientation so that those units have views north and south rather than overlooking the service station. This scheme is tight in size but do-able, and does not require the vacation of Burma Street and the accompanying issues of utility relocation expenses and existing truck circulation issues for the industrial property to the south. $URMA SITE- SCHEME C: This scheme also vacates Burma Street and plaees the building to the north end of the area. This al�ows the main entrance, vehicular drop off, and sur€ace parki.ng to be to the south, a desireable orientation. It would also allow some continued truck circulation and access for the industrial property to the south. An optional vehicular drop off and entrance is possible to` the north. This scheme aiso requires t�king all existxng single family homes to the north.' It's orientation places units looking either north or south (less desireable) , but perpendicular and away from the service station, Existing trees to the north and south should be saved. V�hicular access to the garage: is adjacent ta the railroad ROW, EXISTING CAMEO SITE CONDITIONS: This site is the east end of the block bounded by 146th Street West on the north, Cameo Street on the east, and Lower 147th Street West on the south. Birch Street has been vacated through the center of the site leaving 465' of fror�tage on Cameo Street. Approximatelt 340 ' from Cameo Street along Cedar and along Lower 14?th Street West was considered. An existing gas utility line and ROW is still in the vacated Birch Street and divides this site into two buildable areas, either to the north or south. Each site is approx. 204' X 340' . This site size would be very similar to the HRA project in Hastings.In that 'case additional parking was required accross the street, and that would be the case here, with parking required on the other side of the existing easement. With 20 + cars in the garage an additicinal 12-16 surfac+e parking spaces should be provided. The are a few existing trees on the site and although many are elms in poor shape, consideration for these trees should be given a high priority. CAMEO SITE- SCHEME 1 : This scheme places the building on the narth side of the easement with units oriented east and west and the main entrance, vehicular drop off, and surface parking to the south. It should be noted that this location requires taking a newly remodeled home along Lower 146th Street West. Both schemes are c1�se to downtown services and the surrounding area is considerably more of a residential nature than the Burma Site. In this scheme only one major entrance is required be cause of the orientation to the sun. CAMEO SITE- SCHEME 2: This scheme places the building to the south of the utility easement, with the major entrance and community spaces oriented to the sunny south, but with a secondary entranee, vehieular drop off, surface parking, and enclosed garage parking ramp entrance' to the north. This �onfiguration is similar to the HRA pro3ect in Lakeville. CAMEO �ITE BUILDING PRCK�RAM I�IODIFICATIONS: The area surrounding these two schemes is primarily residential with mostly wood exterior single family homes. There is some use of brick in the area, so consideration should be given to the use of both metal siding and brick nr perhaps al1 metal siding with some small brick accents like the HRA project in West St. Paul. A wood clapbo�rd siding look (accomplished with maintenance free metal siding would help to mitigate the scale of this development in a single famil.y area. To that end, some consideration should be given to limiting sc�me portion(s) of the structur� to one and two stories. Also the design should definitely incorporate a pitched roaf with complimentary gables to fit in to the neighborhood and to develop a residential character. -:, _ ,. __ , -- ._ � r-„r, C�MPARISON OF PROPOSED SCf�EMES FOR TWO LOCATIONS 10- Most Desirable, Compatible, or Accomplishable 1 - Least Desirable, Compatible, or Accomplishable B U R M A S I T E C A M E O S I T E Sch. Sch. Sch. Seh. Sch. A B � � � Site Size g 3 � 8 $ Praximity to Services g g g � � Adj acent Property Compatability 5 4 5 g g Site Slope Difficulty 7 7 7 7 7 Site Drainage 7 �7 � 6 � Removal of Exist. Site Acquisition 3 8 3 6 $ :Exist. Landscape Trees, Vegetation 6 4 7 6 � Traffic Aceess for Occupants 5 6 5 g g Traffic Problems 2 3 2 g 9 Poss. of Accomplish- ing Urban Renewal 9 7 g 5 5 Utilities Expense 1 7 1 g g Site Orientation Sun, Entrance, Winter Conditions 6 4 6 g 6 Expandable in Future 3 1 5 3 3 Site Noise 3 2 3 g g Ped. Girculation in Vicinity 4 4 4 5 5 Fire Access 6 8 5 9 g Security, Def. Space, Prox. to Problems 5 4 5 9 9 Overall Site Organ- ization, Entrance, Parking, Visitor Convenience 7 5 7 9 8 Proxirnity to other Senior Facilities 7 8 9 6 6 Req. Va.riance, Street Vacation 1 8 1 8 8 Prox. to Bus Trans- portation 5 5 6 8 $ Total 109 113 111 152 153 < SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Comparing the two locations quantitatively is difficult since certain categories have more importance and ramifications than others. Scheme B on the Burma site is, in my opinion, much less desireable beaause of it's size and the parking being located on the other side of the street. Schemes A and C are much better in this regard; but require that we vacate the street. We have already had some preliminary indication that this will be expensive (utility relocations, business relocations, traffic circulation changes, etc. ) . This expense will buy a eertain measure of urban renewal, a goal identified early on by the Development Director of the City. There was an indication that additional funds might be available to help mitigate these additional expenses. Schemes 1 and 2 on the Cameo Site are really very similar, the determining factor will probably be information which is not yet available to us, i .e. , soil testing and land acquisition costs. Yn comparing any scheme on the Burma Site with either of the schemes on the Cameo Site, I think the numerical comparison and a more subjective opinion both indicate a preference for the Cameo location. While the HRA has always placed a high priority on locations that are close to services to facilitate mobi'lity, all sites im this case are certainly close to the main commercial' services. The Burma site, however, has a much greater commercial "feel" to it'. In fact you could imagine developing a number of commercial facilities on that location without altering the eharacter of the neighborhood appreciably. This does not seem to be the case with the Cameo Site, which has clearly a more residential "feel" ta it. Also, the noise and traffic issues are quite different on the two lacations. The presence of the i:ndustrial operation to the south of the Burma Site, with truck eireulation, and the accompaning noise� alters the character of that neighborhood considerably. vacating the street and providing alternativ� truck aecess and circulation wi11 be a difficult issue. The clase proximity of the trains Wia.i �aa additional noise and a potential safety issue (although in some projects I 've been involved with, the presence of trains has been voted by a portion of senior's as a real "amenity, and was actually removed as a site disqualifier from the ald 232 Federal program) . Perhaps more troublesome with regard to schemes A and B (less with C because of it's orientation} is the close proximity of tfie service station on 8. Robert �'rail. The activity at night and the noise will be incompatible with housing. In weighing the numerical and more subjective observations, I beiieve the better location for a 40± HRA Senior's Hausing project to be on the Cameo Site. Victor E Zeuthen HRA Architectural Consultant � . . . . . .- . �; , � -. � ' .; - � . � • . . • ' _ - . , . , � . . . , r : . _ . , � . . . . . , , . . _ - - . . . , . - . . - , . - .' . - • � , . � �� . � . � � � � � � V : ► � CT � �O " �R . � � � \ . : � . � � .. � . , . � ' � Z E u , T H E; N . , .. . � .: . . . _ _ ., . . . . . . . . . . ,- � - . � . D E S �1 G N � � � � � � � � � �� . � . . � ., . . . . . � . ' : Ms. Dianne_ Nordquist . t � � � : • � . � DAKOTA COUNTY HRA = � � . ' . • � . - 2496 1 45t Street West , �. � �, . . Rosemaunt, MN' S5063 • . . ' . ' • . .� • � RE: ROSEMOU1qT SENIOR'S� SITE ASSESSMENT � � � , � _ . ; Dear Dianne: � � ' • � � � � -Enelos�d please find the numerical assessment of the �three schemes for the Burma �Site and the. two schemes fo'r the Cameo - • Site. I b'elieve these catagories fairly consider the issues � : . with regard to developing a 40 ± unit senior' s project. on the�e � two locations . As always, existing soil conditions (and soil ' � contamination near the railroad? are very. 'importarnt variables � which can only be quanified with complete testing and a soils . � report. � � � " � � • • � . , � If I can be of further assistance in this matter, or if . you � � would lik.e me to meet with the City to present this, I will . � be happy to do so.. If you have any questions or comments, please " j•ust call ' incerel . . .� . � • � � � � � � � VICTOR E EUTHEN � ' - . � . � " . :; � _ . , . . , , . � �509 ViNCENT AVE 5 ' , . . , lvtINNEAPOl1S. MN Si410 . " � . TELEPHONE 61? 926 -106' 2 August 1993 RE: Scheme Analysis for ROSEMOUNT 'SENIOR HOUSING SITES This report summarizes the five schemes presented to the HRA in reports dated 16 October 1992, 28 March 1993, and a quantitative analysis submitted in July 1993 . HOUSING BUILDING TYPE: As with other HRA senior's projects, the programmed building assumed for this study is as follows: 40-42 units of housing,� one bedroom units, � two bedroom units. _ . Three story wood frame Type III construction with fu11 fire protection. Double loaded corridors (units on both sides of the corridor) , Lounge, Dining, Kitchen Facilities, Community Spaees, Laundry. Fully handicapped accessable Elevator-:,.service to all levels. Management Office on Site. . Full underground one level enclosed parking garage accessable by elevator to the other floors of the building, approx. 20 cars. Full security system for all areas. . Maintenance free exterior of primarily brick with metal siding accents to help with the scale of the building. Elevator will be centrally located. Preliminary cost budget is $43, 400-$48,000 / unit. This building program has been found to give us simply the most building for the dollar. The 40+ unit size is necessary for management efficiency. The double laaded corridor is necessary to accomplish the parking garage below. Enclosed parking is an excellent amenity for seniors. We do not want to exeeed three stories in height for both scale and construction type. EXISTING BURMA SITE CONDITIONS: The site for the first three schemes of this study is bounded by South Robert Trail (HW# 3) on the west, Cedar Street, and Maple street on the north and south respectively, and the railroad ROW on the east. Burma Street runs N-S through the site area.The westerly 150' of the block along South Robert Trail is primarily commercial / retail and to the south of Maple Street, industrial elevators and storage served by the railraad. The rail service is apprax. 20 slow moving trains per day. the site slopes gently 10 ' from the NW corner to the SE corner. There are approx. 6-10 trees on the site which should be considered for saving. All three schemes involve the removal of the car wash, metal storage facility, and some older homes, to prepare the site for senior housing. BURMA SITE- SCHEME A: This scheme vacates Burma Street with an access Cul du sac to the north. It also saves existing single family hames to the north. The scheme was developed to stay as far away as possible from the service station on the block, where noise and night time activity will be disruptive. The SE wing of the building is turned perpendicular to the railroad ROW for better orientation for those units. Surface parking and enclosed garage entrance ramp are to the east as a buffer between the railroad. A patio outside the main community and` dining facility is on the south with good sunlight. There is a large pine tree here that should be saved as an arnenity for this outside space. There is also the possibility for a visitor south entrance with vehicle drop off. BURMA SSTE- SCHEME B: This scheme allows for Burma Street to continue through. To accomplish this, parking will bee accross the street or to the north. A wall enclosed exterior patio to the west will provide some measure of privacy. Enclosed garage parking access ranp is to the south just ta the north of the existing row of _.trees. The north wing of the building is turned on an east/west orientation so that those units have views north and south rather than -overlooking the service station. This scheme is tight __ in size but do-able, and does not require the vacation of Burma Street and the accompanying issues of utility relocation expenses and existing truck circulation issues for the industrial property to the south. BURMA SITE- SCHEME C: This scheme also vacates Burma Street and places the building to the north end of the area. This allows the main entrance, vehicular drop off, and surface parking � to be to the south, a desireable orientation. It would also allow some continued truck circulation and access for the industrial property to �he south. An optional vehicular drop off and entrance is possible to the north. This scheme also reguires taking all existing single family homes to the north. It' s Qrientation places units looking either north or south (less desireable) , but perpendicular and away from the service station. Existing trees to the north and south should be saved. Vehicular access to the garage is adjacent to the railroad ROW. EXISTING CAMEO SITE CONDITIONS: This site is the east end of the block bounded by 146th Street West on the north, Cameo Street on the east, and Lower 147th Street West on the south. Birch Street has been vacated through the center of the site leaving 465 ' of frontage on Cameo Street. Approximatelt 340 ' from Cameo Street along Cedar and along Lower 147th Street West was considered. An existing gas utility line and ROW is still in the vacated Birch Street and divides this site into two buildable areas, either to the north or south. Each site is approx. 2�0' X 340 ` . This site size would be very similar to the HRA project in Hastings.In that case additional parking was required accross the street, and that wauld be the case here, with parking required on the other side of the existing easement. With 20 + cars in the garage an additional 12-16 surface parking spaces should be .provided. The are a few existing trees on the site and although many are elms in poor shape, consideration for these trees should be given a high priority. . CAMEO SITE- SCHEME 1 : This scheme places the building bn the north side of the easement with units oriented east and west and the - main entrance, vehicular drop off, and surface parking to the south. It should be noted that this location requires taking a newly remodeled home along Lower 146th Street West. Both schemes are close to downtown services and the surrounding area is considerably more of a - residential nature than the Burma Site. In this scheme � only one major entrance is required be cause of the orientation to the sun. CAMEO SITE- SCHEME 2: This scheme places the building to the south �f the utility easement, with the major entrance and community spaces oriented to the sunny south, but with a secondary entrance, vehicular drop aff, surface parking, and enclosed garage parking ramp entrance to the north. This configuration is similar to the HRA praject in Lakeville. CAMEO SITE BUILDING PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS: The a=ea surrounding these two schemes 'is primarily residential with mostly wood exterior single family homes. There is some use of brick in the area, so consideration should be giuen to the use of both metal siding and brick or perhaps all metal siding with some small brick accents like the HRA project in West St. Paul. A wood clapboard siding look (accomplished with maintenance free metal siding would help to mitigate the scale of this development in a single family area. To that end, some consideration should be given to limiting some portion(s) of the structure to one and two stories. Also the design should definitely incorporate a pitched roof with complimentary gables to fit in to the neighborhood and ta develop a residential character. . . __ _. .. . . �,,, COMPARISON OF PROPOSED SCHEMES FOR TWO LOCATIONS 10- Most Desirable, Compatible, ar Accomplishable 1 - Least Desirable, Compatible, or Accomplishable B U R M A S I T E C A M E O S I T E Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. A B C � 2 Site Size g 3 7 $ 8 Proximity to Services g g g � � Adjacent Property - Compatability 5 4 5 9 9 Site Slope Difficulty 7 7 7 � � Site Drainage � � � 6 � Removal of Exist. Site Acquisition 3 8 3 6 .8 _ Exist. Landscape Trees, Vegetation 6 4 7 6 7 Traffic Access for � � � Occupants 5 � 5 8 $ Traffic Problems 2 3 2 g g Poss. of Accomplish- ing Urban Renewal 9 7 8 5 5 Utilities Expense 1 7 1 g g Site Orientation Sun, Entrance, Winter Conditions 6 4 6 g 6 Expandable in Future 3 1 5 3 3 Site Noise 3 2 3 8 g Ped. Circulation in Vicinity 4 4 4 5 5 Fire Access 6 8 5 9 9 Security, Def. Space, Prox. to Problems 5 4 5 9 9 Overall Site Organ- ization, Entrance, Parking, Visitor Convenience 7 5 7 g g Praximity to other Senior Facilities 7 8 9 6 6 Req. Variance, Street Vacation 1 8 1 8 $ Prox. to Bus Trans- portation 5 5 6 g g Total 1 09 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 52 1 53 SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Comparing the two locations guantitatively is difficult since certain categories have more importance and ramifications than others. Scheme B on the Burma site is, in my opinion, much less desireable because of it' s size and the parking being located an the other side of the street. Schemes A and C are much better in this regard, but reguire that we vacate the street. We have already had some preliminary indication that this will be expensive (utility relocatians, business relocations, traffic circulation changes, etc. ) . This expense will buy a certain measure of urban renewal, a goal identified early on by the Development Director af the City. There was an indication that additional funds might be available to help mi�igate these additional expenses. Schemes 1 and 2 on the Cameo Site are really very similar, the determining factor will probably be information whieh is not yet available to us, i .e. , soil testing and land acquisition costs. In comparing any scheme on the Burma Site with either of the schemes on the Cameo Site, I think the numerical comparison and a more subjective opinion both indicate a preference for the Cameo location. While the HRA has always placed a high priority on locations that are close to services to facilitate mobility, all sites in this case are certainly close to the main commercial services. The Burma site, however, has a much greater commercial "feel" to it. In fact you could imagine developing a number of commercial facilities on that location without altering the character of the neighbarhood appreciably. This does not seem to be the case with the Cameo Site, - which has clearly a more residential "feel" to it. A1so, the noise and traffic issues are guite different on the two locations. The presence of the industrial operation to the south of the Burma Site, with truck circulation, and the accompaning noise, alters the character of that neighborhood considerably. Vacating the street and providing alternative truck access and circulation will be a difficult issue. The close proximity of the trains will add additional noise and a potential safety issue (although in some projects I 've been involved with, the presence of trains has been voted by a portion of senior's as a real amenity, and was actually removed as a site disqualifier from the old 232 Federal program) . Perhaps more troublesome with regard to schemes A and B (less with C because of it' s orientation) is the close proximity of the service station on S. Robert Trail. The activity at night and the noise will be incompatible with housing. In weighing the numerical and more subjective observations, I believe the better location for a 40± HRA Senior's Housing project to be on the Cameo Site. Victor E Zeuthen HRA Architectural Consultant 4<._.._ e : - �� ,/� � � �K�>TA� CC�UNTY H«�i.in�; & R�c�lcv�lt��,�meilr Aut]Z�,rit�- � i -�'�.��`�� _'i�)(�,1�}�tli`i.A�'. • Rn,cni„unt,�1!\ 5��6ti•T.l�.l�).t:l_' � � �IS? • F:1X(��_',-4�;.ti�ti�� MEMORANDUM TO: Port Authority, City of Rosemount FROM: Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority DATE: October 5, 1993 SUBJECTs Two Potential Rosemount Senior Housing Sites The Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is considering two sites in Rosemount for a forty (40) unit senior hausing develapment. One site is located on Burma Avenue between 146th Street and 147th Street, the other site is loeated on Cam�o Avenue between 146th Street and Lower 147th Street. When evaluating locations for senior housing the HRA uses some of the following selection criteria: 1. Proximity to community services, health care, and retail facilities 2 . Architectural criteria and site layout 3 . Cost of site acquisition, relocation, demolition, and property owners willingness to sell Attached are preliminary budgets estimating acquisition costs for both sites. Also attached is a copy of the report complied by Victor Zeuthen, the HR.A's architectural consultant wha also put together preliminary site plans. The HRA has contacted all property owners within both sites to determine current interested in selling their property. We received the following results: BURMA SITE: Out of a total of eight (8) property owners: 4 - Interested in selling (1 property currently being marketed) 4 - Not interested in selling CAMEO SITE: All ten property owners have expressed an interest in selling. Depending on which scheme is seleeted, a total of seven properties would be acquired. � �"Ati EQUAL C)PPORTUNITY E\�1PL01'ER" � � � � � � � � Page 2 Uctober 5, 1993 Senior Housing Sites Based on the preliminary budgets, owners interest in selling and information presented in the architectural report, the HRA recommends the Cameo site be pursued over the Burma site. We are exeited to start a new senior development in the City Qf Rosemount. Please feel free to contact Diane Nordquist at 423-8I12 with any questions regarding these two sites. PRELIMIAIARY BUDGETS FOR R03EMOtTNT S£NIOR SITE ACQUISITION Th�se are preliminary budgets for acquisition, relocation and clearance. These figures reflect total estimated costs to acqui.re and clear each site. SURMA SITE SCHEME A Estimated Estimated Estimated Street Vacated/ Acquisition Relocation Demolition Util. Relocated Total $493 , 000 $120, 000 $ 40,500 $220, 000 $873 , 500* BURMA SITE SCHEME B Estimated Estimated Estimated Acquisition Relocation Demolition Total __________________________�___-_-_________________===____-=_—-__ $358, 000 $ 90, 000. $ 30, 500 . $478, 500* +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-F-+ CAMEO SITE SCHEME �1 (NORTH) Estimated Estimated Estimated Acquisition Relocation Demolition Total $458 , 200 $ 85, 000 $ 35,000 $578,20� CAMEO SITE SCHEME #2 (S�UTH) Estimated Estimated Estimated Acquisition Relocation Demolition Total $473 , OOD $ 72 , 000 $ 35, 000 $580,400 * Both schemes involve unwilling sellers. Estimated costs do not include cost of condemnation proceedings or cost of potential going concern claim by neighboring business. 1� � L---1- GEt7l� � � - . � � • . � � !� _ � � r---1 S £ _ I , 3 4 �� . « _ .� . .. . . . . . � . � � L�� . . .�"l . . . / � ��.� •�� •\ y�• � . ' - . �\ � � , �, � ' ` � k _ �' � 0-42 � , � � � � . -F---r- �Er bl°�. - ——— � � -��: � �� „f'"� t _ �r'r�_� .".�-\ ' {. ' \ � , �•, �r Y T-J1� �� _�L � � � _ � . 1 � � �� / T1"1.1�.1uc.�� '.�"V t - . -- ,_.�y�. �ar�,s "'� 1 rJ-p°/ _.f t,n �(oor�s . � i , t � � �(o (l�'11G1�'s��. �{ ' 4?� T��- —G t�trw�n,w�� z � �: n+�s rs u� ` �.h�O tWK OSU �.x1EF��IZ� t �' 9� � � (� ' .tr_, t t =. � ,` � • � O ' f s i ) �-i�r�ML. , VKA�res I�ra s-r. � . _. . / , �G,-'�+-.9rz.+E.�r1+� .,r--ly— � / �.� � 1�-8: 1��,-�� , i//�� / � % oF °sEs�W�NT a`K°rA c° H r� +��vs�N� sT�r�� —�-- ►"-�' Gr( � �ICx'°IC .IEOt�sJ �..Sl(�! �/zs/:z � � I � � ('1 � ' � . r---► � � i ' f � L .L : i �� , L..._..1 ' � , � i_ _ - - - -�-► �-� i � +� *._ r� �- �,; � r,. -� . i �. , � ► J i � . . O - ' � . � �� \ � � . . � . � �� // . . . . . . . . j � / . � . � . . . . . . . . _ %�� _G(T� °� �"'�M°ONT (>°��A U �� -#`�UStt� SNt�f V t��_�,' - � �t1TN'ET.1 pE5 +�/�/iL ��W� �`t"/ "` �'��''�'�--� r� � . .� � � ___--._-��_...�.� t � . � � � � � o : � 1 �: . � � � � � �, _ � -:� � �, C � . ,� .� � N . � � � � � . � � �.� � I � � � b • � � �- � Q � ��-��c � � � � , ' �v�n'�„�,�M� _ . W .,,\ G .�.�►- - - -^- ��J .�'�:W: }-' ,� � �, �`, � �� - _ - - __ -' _ _.. _ - - � � � . �,, . -�- --� � -=--.-� --� . � j -�-,� . . �. , � ....�., ,, � � � � �� r � � I r� � o� � �, �- � � �� 1 � . � � , � . � L__ � .�_.__�.. ,� . . `� r --�- 1 � . j �� ' � � -- - - ��,��p ` �� .�FFr r�✓ �� gb � �.,Y�7'�%.��(� � , � �� , . � ! � � � . Iw I � � I 4 � — � , : . �, ��a � � �. _ .____ ...._._ ...___ ..— ..._._ ...__. .,.._._ � �..... ........ _ .._.. ._._ ...._.. ..._... ....... � , . , �--� � � ' � � v.+-^'+ r �►--+ �..��..� .�""� . ( . � . � �. �7`: fi9�-�/� � �� = - j t��t-- ( � i � � � i "� �, � � � � � � � R 1 i � � ` . �+++ r..�+ ��' .r--+ ..� • � � . . . � . . .� . y I ( � � . . . - . . :� _ ' . � r i � +. • . I I ; . . . . � � . I . . I � � y � . . � � . �� . • � ♦ • � � . . . � . .r.. . . . • � � � . � � � � . { ' ---`r' � � F�►G� /D f!� , � , � . F�¢X! � � , t � � �Z, �� G.�� ' = �.� �-- ___.. l��1��U1�Ir ��1U1'a�-� ��T� ° ...r. G�N�� P��1 � a�v�rs I'�_.'�.. '•r- - . - --�.�-- . . � . . r � . . . . . �'I�� S� a.r . . . . . � � . � � � j�'ft�,C _ZF'eT�� s1 r-rv 3/�/�t 3 'fi ��'�} G U�rY ��- � �