HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 382-15 - SnowKreilich.RestrictDev.R2015009CUPRESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Snow Kreilich Architects applied for a Restricted Development Final Plan
#R2015-009CUP. The Applicant proposes to develop a four-story, 29-unit apartment building
with below grade parking. The property is located at 107, 111, 115, and 121 Sixth Avenue S.E.,
Rochester, MN; and,
WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows:
The South 9 feet of Lot 5, and all of Lots 6 and 7, of Lot 6 in A.B. HAGGERTY's
SUBDIVISION of Lots 5 and 6, STATE SUBDIVISION OF SCHOOL Section 36,
Township 107, Range 14, in the City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota,
LESS that part deeded to the City of Rochester, described as follows: that part
of Lots 7, 6, 5, and the South 12 feet in width of Lot 4 in Lot 6 of A.B.
HAGGERTY'S SUBDIVISION of Lots 5 and 6 of STATE SUBDIVISION OF
SCHOOL Section 36, Township 107, Range 14, which lies West of a line
commencing at a point on the South line of said Lot 7, 100 feet West of the SE
corner thereof, running thence North and a little West to a point 120 feet West of
the East line of said Lots and on the North line of said premises, that is on the
North line of the South 12 feet of said Lot 4.
AND
The East 120 feet of the following described tract: The South 16 feet in width of
Lot 3, and the North 35 feet in width of Lot 4, all in Lot 6 in A.B. HAGGERTY'S
SUBDIVISION of Lots 5 and 6, of the STATE SUBDIVISION of Section 36,
Township 107, Range 14, in the City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota.
AND
The South 19 feet of Lots 2 and the North 31 feet of Lot 3 in Block 6 in A.B.
HAGGERTY'S SUBDIVISION of Lots 5 and 6, STATE SUBDIVISION of Section
36, Township 107, Range 14, in the City of Rochester, Olmsted County,
Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, since the property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Dwelling) Zoning
District and since multi -family residential uses are not permitted within a R-1 zoning district,
the Applicant is proposing the development through the restricted development process.
Pursuant to R.C.O. §62.700, the Restricted Development allows certain mixtures of land uses
which are not allowed within a given zoning district on a permitted or conditional basis which
can, if regulated, serve both the public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of
private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standard zoning regulations. The
1
regulations of this article recognize and provide encouragement for innovation and
experimentation in the development of land that would otherwise not be possible under the
zoning district regulations established by this ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, this application requires a two-step review process consisting of a preliminary
plan and a final plan. The preliminary plan phase follows the Type III, Phase II procedure with a
hearing before the Planning Commission and a hearing before the Council. The final plan phase
is a Type III, Phase III procedure with a hearing before the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.706 states the Council must approve a restricted development final
plan if it finds the development satisfies the criteria listed in R.C.O. §62.708, subd. 3 or a
modification for any unmet criteria has been granted as provided in R.C.O. §62.712; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.712 states the Council may waive the need to satisfy certain
approval criteria if it finds-
1. The applicant has demonstrated that the plan as submitted adequately
compensates for failing to address the criterion in question; and,
2. The strict application of any provision would result in exceptional practical
difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such
property, provided the modification may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the purposes
of this ordinance or the policies of the Land Use Plan; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.708 (Criteria for Type III Developments), subd. 3 provides the
relevant criteria for the review of this application; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department applied the criteria found at R.C.O. §62.708, subd. 3
(Final Type III Development Plan) to this application and prepared the following findings of fact:
A. Public Facility Design: City sewer and water, and other utilities
are available to serve the site. Final water main construction plans
with profiles will need to be prepared by a civil engineer and
approved by RPU and conform to standard City of Rochester
requirements. Due to necessary utility work to accommodate this
project, the frontage of 6t" Ave SE in front of the project will need to
be reconstructed; the developer has agreed to this requirement.
The design of private and public utility facilities meet the
requirements and specifications which the applicable utility has
adopted.
B. Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the
property. The proposed storm water strategy utilizes a retention
2
system which will reduce the likelihood of unstable slopes. The
site is not within a floodway or flood fringe area.
C. Access Effect: Access will be taken from the northern corner
of the site, at 6t" Ave SE. The proposed project reduces access
points from two to one and removes all curb cuts along Mayo Park
Drive SE. The vehicle ramp entrance/exit is located approximately
12.5 feet from the north property line, which is greater separation
than is provided in the existing condition. The proposed access
location is approximately 70 feet away from the existing access to
the property to the north (100 Mayo Park Dr SE); this provides
adequate separation and traffic visibility. A dense row of hedging
along the north property line will partially screen headlight impacts
from vehicles entering and exiting the parking facility. On exit from
the building, there will be a degree of lighting impact from vehicles
to the properties on the east side of 6t" Ave SE. Boulevard trees
and the vehicle ramp walls will partially screen the lighting impacts
of vehicle headlights on exiting the building. It is considered that
the development complies with this requirements.
D. Pedestrian Circulation: A path for tenants is provided along the
northern edge of the site, connecting 6t" Ave SE and Mayo Park
Drive. Where the path is adjacent to the vehicle ramp, a concrete
retaining wall extends above grade to function as a guardrail. At
the stairs, a code -compliant handrail is provided. Several landings
are provided, breaking the stair into shorter sections. The dual
entrances on the east and west sides of the buildings also allow
tenants to move between 6t" Ave SE and Mayo Park Drive.
E. Foundation and Site Plantings: A detailed landscape plan has
been submitted with the application. Three private tenant patios
are provided along 6t" Ave SE. Patios are also provided at the
building entries and bordering Mayo Park, providing opportunities
for tenants to occupy the site in a manner consistent with a single-
family residential district (front and back yards). The plantings
include birch trees, serviceberry trees, and a variety of shrubs and
perennials.
F. Site Status: The owner intends to hire a professional
management company to maintain the property. A final plat is
required to combine the lots into a single block and a single lot;
this requirement is a recommended condition of approval.
3
G. Screening and Bufferyards: The developer proposes a 25
foot wide Bufferyard D where the development abuts the property
to the north. This Bufferyard compliance compares well with the
requirement for a Bufferyard D where a multi -family development
within the R-3 Medium Density Residential Zoning District abuts a
single family home. The submitted landscape plan indicates
compliance within this requirement. No Bufferyards are required
where the development abuts park land. The developer has
complied with requirements for Boulevard Trees on both road
frontages to the east and west.
H. Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent
with the principles identified in the preliminary development plan
relative to height impact, setbacks, and internal site design. A
slight variation has been implemented to reduce the width of the
driveway from 25 feet wide to 22 feet wide per a request from the
City Planning Commission. Consequently, the separation between
the ramp to the parking facility and the north property line has
increased, thereby further reducing amenity impacts on the
immediate neighboring property to the north (100 Mayo Park Dr
SE). The plans have also been modified to show compliance with
Bufferyard D requirements for a 25 foot wide Bufferyard at the
north property line. These changes are in conformance with the
preliminary plan approval and conditions.
Internal Circulation Areas: The below grade parking facility
adheres to ordinance requirements for drive aisle width, parking
spaces sizes, and percentage of small car spaces. On May 13t"
2015 the City Planning and Zoning Commission approved Design
Modification R2015-003DM to allow for the reduction of 8 parking
spaces. The proposal demonstrates compliance with parking
requirements and spillover parking for the development.
J. Ordinance Requirements: The proposal compliance with
ordinance requirements as demonstrated in the preliminary plan
approved on June 1st 2015. A wall sign displaying the building
name is proposed facing 6t" Ave SE. The sign meets the
requirements of a Type R sign. A sign permit will be required for
this signage from the City of Rochester Building Safety
Department.
21
A photometric analysis has been submitted with the application.
The ordinance requirements of Section 63.210 are satisfied along
the east and north property lines. Along the west and south
property lines, the proposed lighting levels exceed the allowable
ordinance levels. However, the developer has coordinated with the
City of Rochester Park and Recreation Department on this matter
and is anticipating their approval for the proposed design in the
form of a revocable permit. The Planning Department can permit
luminaire levels to exceed requirements in the latter mentioned
locations provided that the Park and Recreation Department
approves these details.
There is adequate separation between the vehicle ramp and the
north property line, thus providing adequate visibility for traffic
entering and existing the vehicle ramp. The project's suitability for
emergency access was confirmed during the predevelopment
meeting.
K. Non -vehicular and Alternate Travel Modes: The building is
conceived of as having two front doors, one serving 6th Ave SE
and one serving Mayo Park Drive. These entrances open onto
tenant patios with furniture, providing a welcoming outdoor space
for tenants traveling by foot or bike along either road. A second
entrance is provided along Mayo Park Drive, serving a bike storage
room. These two entrances along Mayo Park Drive provide easy
access to the river trail system and Mayo Park for the tenants.
Ample bike parking is provided, with 34 spaces (30 indoors and 4
outdoors). This supports alternate modes of travel by providing
both necessary facilities and convenient access to trails; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department's July 1, 2015, staff report states that, if the City
supports the application, Planning Department staff would recommend the following conditions of
approval be imposed-
1. A Revocable Permit will be required for lighting within City parkland or the
public right-of-way. A lighting agreement and/or revocable permit for any
lighting on the south and west side of the building must be submitted to
the Planning Department prior to development commencing.
2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for this application, as well
as payment of any applicable Storm Water Management Area Charge for
any increase in impervious surface.
5
3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required for the public
improvements required for this proposed development, including
reconstruction of 6t" Ave SE and pedestrian facilities, and Sanitary
Manhole installation along Mayo Park Dr SE.
4. Development charges/obligations applicable to the development of this
property include Sanitary Sewer Availability Charge (SAC), Water
Availability Charge (WAC), and Plant Investment Fee (PIF) collected for
individual lots at the time of building permit issuance.
5. Boulevard trees are required for the development at the rate of 1 tree per
35 feet of frontage on Mayo Park Drive SE and 6t" Ave SE. A boulevard
tree planting plan shall be approved by the City Forester prior to planting.
6. Park dedication will be required if the property proceeds through a land
subdivision process to create individual parcels.
7. The property shall be re -platted into one lot through the platting process;
and,
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2015, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing on this restricted development final plan, reviewed the application according to the
requirements of R.C.O. §62.708, and recommended approval based upon Planning Department
staffs recommended findings of fact subject to the seven conditions of approval described above
and an eighth condition of approval to state as follows:
8. The Council's actions in approving this development occur in response to the
applicant's or his/her representative's oral and written representations as to
the appearance of the building design, exterior fagade, and landscaping. As
such, the applicant must not deviate from the appearance of the building
design, exterior fagade and landscaping as originally presented to the
Council without the Council's prior approval; and,
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2015, the Common Council held a public hearing on the
restricted development final plan request and permitted all interested persons to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, at the August 3rd public hearing, the Council deleted condition #6 as it was not
applicable to this situation; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance of the evidence submitted at the August 3rd
public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Planning Commission's recommended
findings of fact and eight conditions of approval as described above; and,
C9
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
submitted at the August 3rd public hearing, the Common Council determines that the Applicant
satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §62.708 subject to the seven conditions of approval recommended
by the Planning and Zoning Commission (conditions #1 - #5, #7, and #8).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester
that the Restricted Development Final Plan #R2015-009CUP requested by Snow Kreilich
Architects is in all things approved subject to the seven conditions of approval as stated herein
(conditions #1 - #5, #7, and #8).
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
DAY OF , 2015.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2015.
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone 15\RestDevFi na1.1509
7
MAYOR OF SAID CITY