Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 044-15044-15 F4 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Weis Builders — Joe Weis applied for a Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #R2014-022CUP. The Applicant proposes to construct a four-story over parking 68-unit apartment building within the B-4 (General Commercial) Zoning District. The property is located along the east side of First Avenue N.W., and south of Fifth Street N.W.; and, WHEREAS, the property is described as follows: Lots 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 65, ORIGINAL PLAT in the City of Rochester, Minnesota, Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) AND All of Lots 1, 11 and 12, in Block 65, and the North -South alley (now vacated) between said Lots 1 and 12, in the Original Town (now City) of Rochester, Minnesota, and that part of Block 60, and of vacated Ninth Street (now Fourth Street NW), between said Blocks 60 and 65, and lying Northerly of and contiguous to a line that is 8.5 feet Northeasterly, of measured at right angles and parallel to the Chicago and North Western Railway Company Spur Track No. 277, as now located and established. Except that tract conveyed to W.R. Gosnell, described as follows: That part of Lot 12 in Block 65 and that part of vacated Ninth Street (now Fourth Street NW), between Blocks 60 and 65, in the Original Town (now City) of Rochester, Minnesota, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the Southerly extension of the West line of said Block 65 with a line that is parallel to and 8.5 feet Northeasterly of, measured at right angles from the center line of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company Spur Track No. 277, as now located and established; thence Southeasterly along said parallel line, a distance of 54 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles to the last described course, a distance of 40 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles to the last described course, a distance of 70 feet, more or less, to a point in the West line of said Lot 12 in Block 65; thence Southerly along said West line of Lot 12 and its extension thereof, a distance of 42 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. (Abstract Property) :2� is 1 • 044-15 F4 That part of Lot 12 in Block 65 and that part of vacated Ninth Street (now Fourth Street NW) between Blocks 60 and 65 in the Original Town (now City) of Rochester, Minnesota, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the Southerly extension of the West Line of said Block 65 with a line that is parallel to and 8.5 feet Northeasterly of, measured at right angles from, the center line of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company Spur Track No. 277, as now located and established; thence Southeasterly along said parallel line, a distance of 54 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles to the last described course, a distance of 40 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles to the last described course, a distance of 70 feet, more or less, to a point in the West line of said Lot 12 in Block 65; thence Southerly along said West line of Lot 12 and its extension thereof, a distance of 42 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. (Torrens Property); and, WHEREAS, since the property is zoned B-4 (General Commercial) Zoning District a residential uses are not permitted within a B-4 zoning district, the Applicant is proposing the development through the restricted development process; and, •WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.700 recognizes that certain land uses which are generally not allowed within a given zoning district 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;" and, WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.700 further states that the ordinances providing for restricted developments encourage innovation and experimentation in the development of land that would otherwise not be possible under the established zoning district regulations; 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 preliminary plan if it finds the development satisfies the criteria listed in R.C.O. §62.708, subd. 2 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: is 2 • 044-15 F4 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. 2 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. 2 (Preliminary Type III Development Plan) to this application and prepared the following findings of fact: A. Capacity of Public Facilities: 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. • B. Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the property. The parcel is completely flat. The site has a low to moderate sinkhole probability and there are no hydric or floodplain soils. C. Natural Features: There are no known unique natural features at the site. There is no elevation change from the north end to the south end of the site. D. Residential Traffic Impact: Access to the site is via Fifth Street NW. The traffic projected to be generated from the development should not cause the traffic volumes to exceed capacities on local residential streets. The proposed use should not generate frequent truck traffic on the local residential street. The use will not create any additional traffic during the evening and nighttime hours on the local residential streets that what not normally occur if the property was developed for commercial uses. E. Traffic Generation Impact: The anticipated traffic will not substantially increase the capacity of the adjacent roadways and • 044-15 F4 the anticipated development falls below the threshold. • • 0 044-15 F. Height Impacts: The proposed building at fifty-five feet is at a larger scale and proportion to the adjacent commercial and permitted uses within the B-4 (General Commercial) Zoning District at a maximum height of forty feet. The portion of the building facing the existing businesses to the north will appear as a 4-story structure. The proposed project could potentially block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties. G. Setbacks: The proposed building encroaches into the required front yard setback for any of the uses listed in the B-4 (General Commercial) Zoning District at approximately seven feet. H. Internal Site Design: The site layout does not appear to provide adequate building separation and orientation to the existing business located to the southeast of the proposed site. The design of the site also pushes the building within a very close proximity to the railroad tracks. The access taken off of 5th Street NW appears to add congestion and circulation concerns to an already existing dead end alley. I. Screening and Buffering: Landscape space is proposed around the entire property and the narrative states that they are providing 21 percent of the site with green space. (There is currently no Landscape Plan identifying the Landscape Area percentage). The landscape requirement for a 4-story multi -family use in the R-4 is 35 percent. The amount of boulevard trees required would be one tree per thirty-five feet. (There is currently no Landscape Plan identifying the Boulevard Tree Planting requirement along 5tn Avenue NW and Vt Street NW.) F4 Ordinance Requirements: Using the parking requirements for a Multi -family use in the R-4 (High Density) Residential Zoning District, 94 spaces are required. Based on this calculation, they are 13 spaces under the minimum requirement. The proposed development does not show the total landscape area, however, it appears to be less than the 35 percent minimum required. The maximum density for this site is 52.27units and the proposal is 68 units. The site plan does not indicate what percentage of recreation space there will be on site. The requirement would be for eight percent of the building square footage (79,513 square feet x .08 = 6,361 square feet). 0 5 0 044-15 F4 K. General Compatibility: The character of the surrounding neighborhood could be affected by this proposed use. The use as a residential use in a highly commercialized and industrialized zone appears to be generally incompatible. The proximity to the railroad, density, height compared to the surrounding uses, lack of landscaping, recreation space, and buffering all appear to make it incompatible. L. Non -Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel: The proposed development at this point does not detail how they intend to incorporate pedestrian oriented space, pedestrian access to the building entrances, or non -vehicular and alternate modes of travel; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department's October 2, 2013, staff report states that, based upon its proposed findings of fact, Planning Department staff would recommend denial of the preliminary plan. WHEREAS, on November 12, 2014, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this restricted development preliminary plan and reviewed the application according to the requirements of R.C.O. §62.708. At its November 12th meeting, the • Commission recommended denial based upon Planning Department staffs recommended findings of fact; and, WHEREAS, after several continued public hearings, this matter came before the Common Council as a public hearing on January 5, 2015. At the January 5th public hearing,t he Common Council permitted all interested persons to testify and give testimony on the restricted development preliminary plan request; and, WHEREAS, the January 5th public hearing was continued to January 21, 2015; and, WHEREAS, at the January 21, 2015, public hearing, the Common Council permitted all interested persons to testify and give testimony on the restricted development preliminary plan request; and, WHEREAS, at the January 21st public hearing, the applicant's representative offered the following proposed findings of fact in support of the application: F. Height Impacts: The building is higher than what the current zoning allows, but, as mentioned above, restrictive development allows for innovation and experimentation that is otherwise not allowed by the zoning ordinance. This project would be the first project in a 0 • 044-15 F4 downtown area in need of redevelopment. Given current land values, which continue to rise, it would be a challenge for most, if not all, new projects within the downtown area to be financially viable at less than four stories. Based on this, we ask the council to view this project in the context of what the area will look like in the future, not how it looks today. In regards to the potential blocking of sunlight, per Chapter 62 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, it should be considered whether the structure blocks sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four months out of th year. A preliminary assessment does not evidence the sunlight will block adjacent properties during the majority of the day for over four months out of the year. A comprehensive shadow study is underway and will be presented at the 1/21/2015 council meeting. G. Setbacks. As mentioned above, restrictive development allows for innovation and experimentation that is otherwise not allowed by the zoning ordinance. It is not uncommon for urban developments to have little to no front yard setbacks. This creates an urban feel to the building while optimizing the usage of a downtown site. • H. Internal Site Design. The building separation from the building to the southeast is approximately 25 feet. The required rear yard setback for the underlying zoning is 0 feet. In turn, the proposed project exceeds the requirement of the underlying zoning by 25 feet. Additionally, the project design has been presented to the owner of the business located to the southeast of the project and the owner is supportive of the proposed project layout. Regarding the railroad tracks, there is nothing in the ordinance preventing housing from being located near railroad tracks and it is not uncommon for new urban projects to be located near tracks. According to Canadian Pacific Railway, on this line "ther are on average two trains that run per day, one each way." Based on the limited number of trains crossing daily, the rail traffic should not dramatically impact the desirability of this project. A fence will be added to the south and southeast areas of the project to mitigate the impacts of the track toward the project. Additionally, caution signs will be placed along the fence and railway safety training will be provided to tenants upon move in. 0 7 0 044-15 F4 Regarding the congestion, per the Staff Report, "The traffic projected to be generated from the development should not cause the traffic volumes to exceed capacities on local residential streets." The proposed project is anticipated to produce approximately 450 trips per day. Based on previous conversations with Rochester Traffic Engineers, traffic generated by multifamily housing is significantly less than most commercial uses that could be built at this site under the B-4 zoning classification (fast food, retail, drugstore). Based on this, the proposed rezoning would be an improvement in terms of potential traffic congestion. I. Screening and Buffering. Restrictive development allows for innovation and experimentation that is otherwise not allowed by the zoning ordinance. In order to maximize density and provide adequate parking, the project is providing 14 percent less landscaping than a traditional R-4 multifamily development however the proposed landscaping is 11 % greater than required by the underlying zoning. A majority of the landscaping will be along 1st Avenue, providing an enjoyable pedestrian friendly area to be enjoyed by residents that is also aesthetically pleasing to those • passing by. Joseph Development is confident that residents will be attracted to the project's pristine location and not be deterred by landscaping that is under 35%. The landscaping plan will include boulevard trees, one per 35 feet. A detailed landscaping plan will be submitted as part of Phase II of the Restrictive Development Application Process J. Ordinance Requirement. As mentioned in the general description, the project's walkability, as well as close proximity to several bus lines, will significantly reduce the need for residents to rely on vehicles for transportation. Based on this, we feel the proposed 81 off street spaces will be adequate for the project. The parking reduction is 14% less that what is required. Recent multifamily and mixed use projects in similar locations have received parking reductions of 38% and 31 % below the required off street stalls. Based on this, the proposed project is requesting a moderate reduction compared to what has recently been approved. Additionally, the proposed project will have a large number of contiguous street parking that will be sparsely used during non - business hours. Please see Exhibit B for further details. • 044-15 F4 In regards to density, given the critical need for downtown housing, the limited number of sites in the downtown area, and the high cost of such sites, it is imperative that this project have a higher density than what is allowed in the R-4 zoning district. The current proposal provides 68 units on .9 acres or 75 units per acre. There are multiple residential properties throughout Rochester, some of which were approved within the last two years, with similar or higher densities. See Exhibit B for further details. The proposed project will be providing the following recreations space: Outdoor tot lot Four community rooms One exercise room Additionally, 35 of the units will have balconies. The recreation space accounts for 1,869 square feet. Balconies account for 1,156. Combining these provides 3,025 sf of recreation space. The proposed development does provide less recreation space than is • required under the R-4 standard but believes the project's proximity to nearby amenities, most notably within two blocks of a city park, diminishes the need for 8% recreation space. K. General Compatibility. It is true the character of the surrounding neighborhood will be affected by the proposed use but we believe will be in a positive manner. This neighborhood is currently occupied by several small commercial buildings, most of which are one to two stories. Given the proximity to the downtown Rochester core it is clear that these uses are not maximizing the potential of the area. If every project proposed in the subject area were "compatible" the city would continue to see one to two story small commercial buildings constructed in this area. The proposed project will provide a new, high density project to the neighborhood that we hope will spur further redevelopment in the area, aid local business, and provide much needed "walkable" affordable housing in the downtown Rochester area The developer has discussed the project with numerous neighbors and the general reception thus far has been positive. As mentioned throughout this narrative, the restrictive development process encourages innovation and experimentation. Based on this, we 0 044-15 F4 respectfully request the council view this neighborhood in the context of how it can look in the future, not how it looks today. L. Non -Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel. The proposed building consists of infill development that provides direct and convenient pedestrian access to the building entrances from the adjacent public sidewalks. Bicycle parking is provided in the underground garage; and, WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence submitted at the January 21stpub lic hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Planning Commission's recommended findings of fact as they pertain to criteria A, B, C, D, and E; and, WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence submitted at the January 21stpub lic hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Applicant's recommended findings of fact as they pertain to criteria F, G, H, I, J, K, and L; and, WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence submitted at the January 21st public hearing, the Common Council determines that the Applicant satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §62.708 subject to the following condition of approval: • 1. The apartment building will be constructed consistent with the architectural revised rendering, the change in the building materials, and the change in the building appearance as presented by the Applicant to the Common Council at the Council's January 21, 2015, public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #R2014-022CUP is in all things approved subject to the one condition as described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council not waive the Final Plan review phase of this application. 0 10 044-15 F4 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS 21st DAY OF JANUARY 2015. PRESIDENT Cp SAID COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: �zt�r�r, , -�r�- CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS 22nd DAY OF JANUARY , 2015. MAYOR OF SAID CITY A r � y '�Artn•ai�i�Us� Zone 1O\RestDevPre.1422