HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 443-04 • RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, D & S Partners, LLC, & Stephan Palen requested an amendment to
Planned Unit Development R-4 (19 Norwest) to remove the swimming pool and accessory
structure from the property and redevelop the lot with 14 townhome units. The property is
platted as Lot 1, Block 3, Nineteen Norwest and is located along the west side of 26th Avenue
N.W., and along the south side of Charles Court N.W.; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its August 11, 2004, meeting
reviewed the proposed amendment in light of the criteria provided by Section 61.146 of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances and made the following findings of fact:
61.146 Standard for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator,
Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a
conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the
proposed development is made:
1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and
pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and
ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden
upon public facilities.
The site plan and access locations appear to meet Ordinance
• standards.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and
structures will be detrimental to other private development in the
neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and
storm drains, water or similar public facilities.
The construction of the two-story townhomes will be not detrimental
to other private development in the neighborhood. The
neighborhood currently includes a mix of housing styles and
densities.
3) The provision for on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide
adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of
the development.
The proposed amendment does include a landscaped bufferyard and
should provide adequate protection to neighboring properties,
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems
that may be created by the development.
Grading and drainage plan approval will be required prior to
development.
• 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists
traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of
• occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and
diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
Exterior lighting should not create undue hazards to motorists
traveling in the area.
6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not
providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for
emergency vehicles.
The proposed development does not appear to create hazards
related to site access for emergency vehicles.
7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial
change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such
that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this
paragraph.
Not applicable
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards
applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with
standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under
consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters
such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a
• variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant.
The development appears to comply with the standards applicable to
townhome development in the R-3 district, the underlying district for
this PUD; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its August 11, 2004, meeting
reviewed the proposed amendment in light of the criteria provided by Section 62.708 of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances and made the following findings of fact:
62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to
approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and
Council shall be guided by the following criteria:
1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned
utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed
development.
Existing and planned utilities are expected to be adequate to
serve the development.
b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic
• hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have
• been identified and the development of these areas has been
taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans.
Not applicable
c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction,
the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to
the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing
desirable vegetation of the site.
Not applicable
d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area,
the proposed development:
1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities
on local residential streets;
2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential
streets;
3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime
hours on local residential streets;
The scale of the proposed project should not adversely
• impact traffic on residential roadways.
e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the
development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be
exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of
access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been
identified where needed.
The scale of the proposed expansion is not of a magnitude to
require the preparation of a traffic impact study.
f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction,
the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible
with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include:
1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent
properties during a majority of the day for over four (4)
months out of the year;
2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the
primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created
due to differences in elevation.
The construction of the two-story townhomes will be not
• detrimental to other private development in the
• neighborhood. The neighborhood currently includes a
mix of housing styles and densities,
g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction,
proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a
manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the
underlying zoning district.
The proposed building location would be consistent with
townhomes developed in the R-3 district
h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new
construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building
separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open
spaces, street frontages or other focal points.
The proposed project appears to meet adequate building
separation to the orientation of the existing buildings, open
spaces, and street frontages.
i) Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and
bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of
residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from
• the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility
areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible
standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle
access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between
adjacent land uses.
The proposed amendment does include a landscaped
bufferyard and should provide adequate protection to
neighboring properties,
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes
adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in
the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to
meet ordinance requirements.
Off street parking and spill over parking requirements for this
development appear to be met. The development is consistent
with the standards applicable to townhome development in the
R-3 district.
k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual
appearance, general density and overall site design of the
proposed development should be compared to the established
pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood
• and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general
compatibility of the development with its surroundings.
• The proposed use is compatible with the existing uses on the
property and the surrounding properties.
2) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility
facilities meet the requirements and specifications which the
applicable utility has adopted.
Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to
development.
b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of
geologic hazard have been incorporated into the development plan
or such areas have been set aside from development.
Not applicable,
c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed
and located so as to:
1) Provide adequate separation from existing street
intersections and adjacent private driveways so that traffic
circulation problems in public right-of-ways are minimized;
• 2 Not adversely impact adjacent residential properties with
factors such as noise from accelerating or idling vehicles or
the glare of headlights from vehicles entering or leaving the
site.
In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified
potential problems in the operation of access points, plans for
private improvements or evidence of planned public improvements
which will alleviate the problems have been provided.
The applicant will need to verify that the spacing standards of
the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual are being met.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure
that pedestrians can move safely both within the site and across
the site between properties and activities within the neighborhood
area, and where appropriate, accommodations for transit access
are provided.
Pedestrian facilities are in-place adjacent to this property.
•
• e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has
been prepared which indicates the finished site will be consistent
with the landscape character of the surrounding area.
Though foundation plantings are not identified on the Plan, the
Plan does identify a landscaped bufferyard and boulevard
trees.
f) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the
future maintenance and ownership pattern of the project, including
common areas, the completion of any platting activities, and the
provision of adequate assurance to guarantee the installation of
required public improvements, screening and landscaping.
Future re-platting of the property will require an ownership and
maintenance agreement or association documents for long
term maintenance of common areas,
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard
design contains earth forms, structures and plant materials which
are adequate to satisfy the need identified in Phase I for the
project.
The proposed amendment does include a landscaped
bufferyard and should provide adequate protection to
• neighboring properties.
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with
the principles identified in preliminary development plan relative to
Height, Setbacks, and Internal Site Design.
Not applicable.
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and
loading areas and circulation aisles to serve these areas meet
ordinance requirements in terms of design.
The design for spillover parking on-site appears to meet
ordinance standards.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is
consistent with the requirements of the underlying zoning district for
similar uses in regards to signage and other appearance controls,
and with general standards such as traffic visibility and emergency
access.
The development appears to comply with the standards
applicable to townhome development in the R-3 district, the
underlying district for this PUD; and,
• WHEREAS, the Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment of the
PUD subject to the following conditions:
• 1. Grading & Drainage Plan approval will be required prior to re-
development, and a Storm Water Management Charge will be applicable
for any increase in impervious surface associated with this project.
2. Execution of a City-Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable
public utility easements is required prior to construction of any public
infrastructure required for re-develop of this Property.
3. Any existing access locations that will not be utilities for the
redevelopment of this Property shall be restored with curb & gutter,
boulevard & sidewalk at the Owner's expense, concurrent with
development of this project.
4. Proposed access spacing must meet LDM requirements.
5. Any existing utilities that need to be relocated to accommodate this Plan
must be relocated at the expense of the developer.
6. New Utility easement shall be dedicated as required by the City.
7. Parkland dedication shall be med via cash in lieu of land, as identified in
• the July 23, 2004 memorandum from Rochester Park & Recreation.
8. If the existing water service to the existing accessory building is not re-
used, it must be abandoned at the main in the street per the requirements
of the City.
WHEREAS, the Common Council, at its September 8, 2004, meeting, considered the
matter, concurred with the Commission's findings and recommendation, and adopted the
Commission's recommended conditions as its own.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Common Council of the City of Rochester
that applicant's proposed amendment to Planned Unit Development R-4 (19 Norwest) to remove
the swimming pool and accessory structure from the property and to redevelop the lot with 14
townhome units is in all things approved subject to the above eight conditions.
•
• PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY O 2004.
e�4
SIDENT OF SKID-COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
ITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS Y DAY OF 2004.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of.the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Z0ne2000\P U D.amend R4
•
•