HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 080-15080-15
RESOLUTION
F11
WHEREAS, Oliver, LLC, applied for multiple variances (#R2014-016VAR) in order to
construct a three-story, 15-unit apartment building with below grade parking. The property is
located along the north side of First Street S.W., and west of Seventh Avenue S.W.; and,
WHEREAS, the specific variance requests are as follows:
1. A variance of .23 from the permitted floor area ratio in order to meet the
minimum permitted floor area ratio of .92 for a three-story building with
bonus density (R.C.O. §62.240). (Applicant proposed a floor area ratio of
1.15.)
2. A variance of 10.67 units per acre from the permitted density in order to
meet the minimum permitted density of 43.56 units per acre (R.C.O.
§62.240). (Applicant proposed a density of 54.23 units per acre.)
3. A variance of 4% of the lot or 458 square feet of land scape space in
order to meet the minimum required landscape space of 30% of the lot or
3,393 square feet (R.C.O. §62.240). (Applicant proposed landscape
space of 26% of the lot or 2,935 square feet.);
4. A variance of six feet from the required 18 feet minimum driveway width
requirement (R.C.O. §63.455(H),(4).) (Applicant proposed 12-foot wide
driveway.); and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §60.417 provides the criteria by which a variance request is
analyzed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff applied the criteria found in R.C.O. §60.417 to
the requested variances and made the following findings of fact:
THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES,
SUCH AS IRREGULARITY, NARROWNESS, OR SHALLOWNESS OF
THE LOT OR EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHICAL OR PHYSICAL
CONDITIONS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND DO
NOT APPLY TO OTHER LANDS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
THE SAME CLASS OF ZONING DISTRICT: There would appear to be
unique circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property
that do not apply generally to other properties within the R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) Zoning District because of the density of the
immediate neighborhood coupled with the transitioning of the local
character from single family style dwellings to dense urban style living;
2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE
TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY
THE LANDOWNER: There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances
that are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner because of the density of the immediate neighborhood coupled
with the transitioning of the local character from single family style
dwellings to dense urban style living;
3. THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO OVERCOME PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO
THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER
NOT PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE: The granting of this variance
would appear to be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the
applicant's property. A multifamily development is a permitted use within
the R-3 Zoning District and the density of the immediate neighborhood
coupled with the transitioning of the local character from single family style
dwellings to dense urban style living appears reasonable;
4. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE
PUBLIC WELFARE OR MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO OTHER
PROPERTY IN THE AREA, AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY: The granting of this variance request
would not be substantially detrimental to the adjacent property owners.
The density of the immediate neighborhood coupled with the transitioning
of the local character from single family style dwellings to dense urban
style living is consistent with the character already established in the
immediate neighborhood;
5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND
INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: The granting of this variance would not
be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning
Ordinance because the Ordinance allows concurrent review of variances
with conditional use permits;
6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The R-3 (Medium Density) Residential Zoning
District is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the
Zoning District Map identifies the property for Medium Density Residential;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff recommended the following additional
findings of fact:
1. Floor Area Ratio: The minimum variance that would be necessary to
alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance of .23 to 1.15 from the
required .92 maximum floor area ratio per Section 62.240, of the City of
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual;
•
2. Density: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the
alleged hardship would be a variance of 10.67 units/acre to 54.23
units/acre (14.1 units/.26acres) from the required 43.56 units/acre per
Section 62.240, of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual;
3. Landscape Area: The minimum variance that would be necessary to
alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance of four percent to 26
percent from the required 30 percent minimum landscape percentage per
Section 62.240, of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual; and,
4. Driveway Width: The minimum variance that would be necessary to
alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance of six feet to 12 feet
from the required 18 feet minimum drive aisle width per Section 63.455,
H, 4), of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual; and,
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Planning and Zoning Commission at its January
14, 2015, meeting at which time the Commission recommended the denial of the requested
variances based upon the following findings of fact:
. 1. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES: There would not appear to be unique
circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property that do
not apply generally to other properties within the R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) Zoning District;
2. NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER: There are not extraordinary
conditions or circumstances that are due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner;
3. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance would not appear to be
necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property;
4. ESSENTIAL CHARACTER: The granting of this variance request would
be substantially detrimental to the adjacent property owners;
5. INTENT AND PURPOSE: The granting of this variance would be
detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning
Ordinance;
6. CONSISTENTCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) Zoning District is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan; and,
9
• WHEREAS, this matter came before the Common Council at its February 18, 2015,
meeting; and,
WHEREAS, the record before the Common Council at its February 18th meeting includes
the information found within the Council meeting agenda packet, the presentations made during
the public hearing, the City's ordinances, and the City's Comprehensive Plan including the Land
Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area. All of these documents are on file with the City
Clerk and are incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, at its February 18th public hearing, the Applicant's representative appeared
and testified in support of his request for the variances. He stated the request for a variance as
to density requirement was reasonable and compliant with R.C.O. §60.417 based upon the
following findings of fact:
1. THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES,
SUCH AS IRREGULARITY, NARROWNESS, OR SHALLOWNESS OF
THE LOT OR EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHICAL OR PHYSICAL
CONDITIONS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND DO
NOT APPLY TO OTHER LANDS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
THE SAME CLASS OF ZONING DISTRICT: The density of this immediate
neighborhood is very high because most of the single-family homes have
been converted to multi -unit residences. Because these homes sit on small
• urban lots, they cannot provide the adequate amount of off-street parking,
therefore, creating a tight on -street parking situation on First Street S.W.
For this project to properly fit into the fabric of the neighborhood and provide
a one to one parking ratio, it must include underground parking. A double
loaded parking layout requires a building width of approximately 62 feet.
This size and number of parking spaces determine the density that makes
this project economically feasible;
2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE
TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY
THE LANDOWNER: These neighborhood conditions of density, single-
family home conversion and tight on -street parking on First Street S.W., are
unique to this property and have been created by the zoning rules of the
previous decades;
3. THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO OVERCOME PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO
THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER
NOT PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE: In an effort to create a dense,
urban style apartment building with underground parking (and a one to one
parking ratio), this is the size of building that is necessary to overcome the
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and makes this
project economically feasible.
The maximum allowed density in the R-3 zoning district with an Incentive
Development (with bonus) is 43.56 units/acre. This project is proposing
54.23 units/acre. This density is far below the average walkable market
rate apartments in similar downtown core neighborhoods. Please refer to
Exhibit "A". The size of this building was part of the agreement with the
neighborhood during the Nicholas Apartments' zoning approval process;
4. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE
PUBLIC WELFARE OR MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO OTHER
PROPERTY IN THE AREA, AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY: This variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare. In fact, this project will enhance the
character of the immediate neighborhood;
5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND
INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: This variance does fit the intent of the
ordinance because this apartment building is walkable, properly sited for
good urban design and fits into the fabric of the neighborhood;
6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This variance is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The City's Land Use Plan is medium density and the
. current zoning is R-3. The Incentive Development process is consistent
with the City's adopted policies and allows for dense, urban style
developments to be incorporated in the core residential neighborhoods;
and,
WHEREAS, at its February 18th public hearing, the Applicant's representative
appeared and testified in support of his request for the variances. He stated the request for a
variance as to the floor area ratio requirement was reasonable and compliant with R.C.O.
§60.417 based upon the following findings of fact:
THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES,
SUCH AS IRREGULARITY NARROWNESS OR SHALLOWNESS OF
THE LOT OR EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHICAL OR PHYSICAL
CONDITIONS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND DO
NOT APPLY TO OTHER LANDS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
THE SAME CLASS OF ZONING DISTRICT: The density of this immediate
neighborhood is very high because most of the single-family homes have
been converted to multi -unit residences. Because these homes sit on small
urban lots, they cannot provide the adequate amount of off-street parking,
therefore, creating a tight on -street parking situation on First Street S.W.
For this project to properly fit into the fabric of the neighborhood and provide
a one to one parking ratio, it must include underground parking. A double
loaded parking layout requires a building width of approximately 62 feet.
C
This size and number of parking spaces determine the density that makes
this project economically feasible;
2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE
TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY
THE LANDOWNER: These neighborhood conditions of density, single-
family home conversion and tight on -street parking on First Street S.W., are
unique to this property and have been created by the zoning rules of the
previous decades;
3. THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO OVERCOME PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO
THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER
NOT PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE: In an effort to create a dense,
urban style apartment building with underground parking (and a one to one
parking ratio), this is the size of building that is necessary to overcome the
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and makes this
project economically feasible.
The maximum floor area allowed in the R-3 Zoning District with an Incentive
Development is .92. This project is proposing a FAR of 1.15. This floor
area ratio is far below the average walkable market rate apartments in
similar downtown core neighborhoods. The size of this building was part of
the agreement with the neighborhood during the Nicholas Apartments'
zoning approval process;
4. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE
PUBLIC WELFARE OR MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO OTHER
PROPERTY IN THE AREA AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY: This variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare. In fact, this project will enhance the
character of the immediate neighborhood;
5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND
INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: This variance does fit the intent of the
ordinance because this apartment building is walkable, properly sited for
good urban design and fits into the fabric of the neighborhood;
6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This variance is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The City's Land Use Plan is medium density and the
current zoning is R-3. The Incentive Development process is consistent
with the City's adopted policies and allows for dense, urban style
developments to be incorporated in the core residential neighborhoods;
and,
0
WHEREAS, at its February 18th public hearing, the Applicant's representative
appeared and testified in support of his request for the variances. He stated the request for a
variance as to landscape area requirements was reasonable and compliant with R.C.O. §60.417
based upon the following findings of fact:
THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES,
SUCH AS IRREGULARITY, NARROWNESS, OR SHALLOWNESS OF
THE LOT OR EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHICAL OR PHYSICAL
CONDITIONS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND DO
NOT APPLY TO OTHER LANDS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
THE SAME CLASS OF ZONING DISTRICT: The extraordinary conditions
in this instance is creating a dense urban project in an area that is already
very dense. The current density in the immediate area is high because
most of the density comes from homes that were converted into multi -family
buildings, on -street parking is limited.
Therefore, it was this project's intent to create a development with a one to
one parking ratio. In order to do that and create an aesthetically pleasing
apartment project that fits the neighborhood, an underground parking
garage is planned. The size of the underground parking structure to double
load cars requires a building to be approximately 62 feet wide. The
narrowness of these two urban lots and the desire to have a shared
driveway reduces the overall landscape area;
2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE
TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY
THE LANDOWNER: This density and parking condition is due to the fact
that the zoning historically has allowed these older homes in the immediate
area to be converted to multi -family and with the smaller lot sizes, adequate
off-street parking has not been provided, creating an on -street parking
problem;
3. THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO OVERCOME PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO
THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER
NOT PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE: In an effort to create a dense,
urban style apartment building that provides parking at a one to one ratio,
the reduced landscape area and this variance is necessary;
4. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE
PUBLIC WELFARE OR MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO OTHER
PROPERTY IN THE AREA AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY: This variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare. The front yard area will include a small
"pocket park" and will be an attractive and functional amenity for the
neighborhood. Both the east and west sides of the building will be
1-1
• landscaped;
5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND
INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: This variance does fit the intent of the
ordinance because this project is putting an emphasis on good landscaping.
Zoning requirements are for 38 percent and we are providing 26 percent.
The high quality of the proposed landscaping and the front yard "pocket
park" satisfies the intent of the ordinance;
6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This variance is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The City's Zoning Ordinance designates this
property as R-3. This location demands that it be an urban style
development. The Incentive Development process (and this variance) is
consistent with the City's adopted policies and allows for this style of
development; and,
WHEREAS, at its February 18th public hearing, the Applicant's representative appeared
and testified in support of his request for the variances. He stated the request for a variance as
to the driveway width requirement was reasonable and compliant with R.C.O. §60.417 based
upon the following findings of fact:
• 1. THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES,
SUCH AS IRREGULARITY, NARROWNESS, OR SHALLOWNESS OF
THE LOT OR EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHICAL OR PHYSICAL
CONDITIONS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND DO
NOT APPLY TO OTHER LANDS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
THE SAME CLASS OF ZONING DISTRICT: Section 63.455 of the
Rochester Land Development Manual requires that a driveway width be 18
feet when serving more than six units. The extraordinary circumstance in
this instance is the nature of creating an aesthetically pleasing building that
fits into the neighborhood fabric and is economically feasible, requires
compromises. These urban projects prioritize walking over driving. The lots
are narrow and it is not feasible to create driveways that are 18 feet wide. A
driveway that is 12 feet wide allows landscaping on each side which makes
the appearance more pleasing;
2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE
TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY
THE LANDOWNER: We are sharing a driveway with the adjacent Kutzky
House and creating a dense urban project with underground parking.
Narrow driveways are typical in this neighborhood because of its dense and
walkable nature;
3. THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO OVERCOME PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO
8
• THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER
NOT PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE: In an effort to create a dense,
urban style apartment building with a shared driveway, this variance is
necessary to develop a project that is aesthetically pleasing and
economically viable;
4. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE
PUBLIC WELFARE OR MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO OTHER
PROPERTY IN THE AREA AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY: This variance is not materially
detrimental to the public welfare. In fact, the narrower driveway will make it
safer for pedestrians by requiring cards to drive slower and it allows for
more landscaping;
5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND
INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: The variance does fit the intent of the
ordinance because this apartment building is properly sited for good urban
design and fits into the fabric of the neighborhood;
6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This variance is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The City's Zoning Ordinance designates this
property as R-3. This location demands that it be an urban style
development. The Incentive Development Process (and this variance) is
consistent with the City's adopted policies and allows for this style of
development; and,
WHEREAS, the majority of the testimony provided at the February 18th public hearing
focused on the requirement found in R.C.O. §60.417, subd. 1(F), which states that the approval
authority may grant a variance to the provisions of the City's zoning ordinance if the authority
finds that the "terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." The Council
record reflects the following testimony and information:
1. The property in question is located within the R-3 (medium density
residential) zoning district despite the fact the Comprehensive Plan's Land
Use Plan Map designates this area for low density residential uses.
2. The requested density variances would, if approved, cause the proposed
development's density to be inconsistent with that part of the Land Use Plan
that shows a low density residential designation for this area.
3. The initial Planning Department staff findings of fact supported the variance
request finding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. During the public hearing, the Planning Director indicated the finding of fact
as to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan could no longer be
0
• supported when considering the low density land use designation of the
property.
5. The applicant's proposed findings of fact indicated there was consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan as the Plan calls for dense, urban style
developments to be incorporated in the core residential neighborhoods.
6. The Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area, which is a part of
the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended through January 28, 2013,
Chapter III, page 23, states, in part: "While it is recognized that single and
multi -family uses are significantly different in many respects, the Plan
nevertheless allows, and in some cases, promotes, the mixture of these
uses in low -density residential areas. Such areas are identified in older
neighborhoods where structural and use characteristics indicate that a
transition from single-family to higher density residential uses either has
already occurred using existing structures or should occur with replacement
of structures. Ensuring the viability of existing older neighborhoods may not
be possible without encouraging redevelopment through such means as
allowing higher density residential uses. ... Finally, it is felt to be desirable
to provide for a range of densities and development styles in newly
developing areas in order to provide flexibility in housing development,
promote the development of affordable housing, ensure that the Plan can
• be responsive to changing social conditions in the area, and provide for the
integration of multi -family uses into the fabric of neighborhood life."
WHEREAS, at its February 18th public meeting, the Council concluded that the Applicant
had satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §60.417 based upon the Planning Department's original
recommended findings of fact and the Applicant's representative's recommended findings of
fact, and was, therefore, entitled to the variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the Applicant has satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §60.417 and is entitled to the
requested variances. Specifically, the Council finds that the requested density variances are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when the Plan is read in its entirety rather than in
isolation. The requested density variances further the Plan's call for mixed uses in low density
residential areas to ensure the viability of older neighborhoods that are in transition with
changing social conditions in the area and for the integration of multi -family uses in this
neighborhood.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City approve the request of Oliver, LLC, for the
following variances (#R2014-016VAR) in order to construct a three-story, 15-unit apartment
building with below grade parking to be located along the north side of First Street S.W., and
west of Seventh Avenue S.W :
1. A variance of .23 from the permitted floor area ratio in order to meet the
minimum permitted floor area ratio of .92 for a three-story building with
0 10
• bonus density (R.C.O. §62.240). (Applicant proposed a floor area ratio of
1.15.);
2. A variance of 10.67 units per acre from the permitted density in order to
meet the minimum permitted density of 43.56 units per acre (R.C.O.
§62.240). (Applicant proposed a density of 54.23 units per acre.);
3. A variance of 4% of the lot or 458 square feet of land scape space in
order to meet the minimum required landscape space of 30% of the lot or
3,393 square feet (R.C.O. §62.240). (Applicant proposed landscape
space of 26% of the lot or 2,935 square feet.); and
4. A variance of six feet from the required 18 feet minimum driveway width
requirement (R.C.O. §63.455(H),(4).) (Applicant proposed 12-foot wide
driveway.)
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS _18th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015,
•
PRESI ENT t SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: It4-� S &'
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS 19th DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2015,
-0;P=' 1.5
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
CHi-9TCR.,y!!h,
U l 1 •'i•�� rye, '° : a
�k17�;. A•hU GL'Si yy .
Zone I WarianceRes.1416
0 11