HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 072-14 o
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, MEPC Apache Properties, Inc., requested a Type III, Phase II Amendment
to the Planned Unit Development for the Apache Mall Shopping Center (#R2014-001 PUD) to
allow for the development of a freestanding restaurant (9,000 sq. ft.) pad in the northerly portion
of the property as well as reconfiguring and expanding the existing Sears store into a Scheels
store. The parking and drives around the area of construction will be reconfigured. The property
is located along the south side of Highway 14 East (12`" Street) and east of Highway 52; and,
WHEREAS, the Apache Mall was originally approved under the Community Shopping
Center Plans provisions of section 64.504 of the Zoning Code. When the current Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual was adopted in 1992, it eliminated these
provisions. The manual, however, does provide for amendments to existing plans. Section
60.326 states that the term Planned Unit Development shall also include Community Shopping
Center Plans. According to R.C.O. §60.326, amendments to a PUD shall be processed
through the Type III, Phase II, hearing process, and according to the regulations applicable to
the criteria for restricted developments. Amendments to an existing PUD are processed
according to the regulations applicable to a conditional use permit and restricted development;
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. §61.146 (Standards for Conditional Use Permits) provides in part the
relevant criteria for the review of this application; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department applied the criteria found at R.C.O. §61.146 to this
application and prepared the following findings of fact:
61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: Subdivision 1. The
zoning administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development
permit authorizing a conditional use unless it determines one or more of the
following findings can be made with respect to the proposed development:
Subd. 2. 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 provisions for vehicle loading, unloading,
vehicular and pedestrian circulation should not create hazards.
Subd. 3. The site Ian fails to provide pedestrian access to an p p p Y
customer/tenant ingress/egress of the building, including from a public
right-of-way and off-street parking area that serves the use in a manner
which minimizes non-vehicular/vehicular conflicts. The provisions to provide
pedestrian access can be accommodated through pedestrian oriented design
within the parking lot to the Scheels tenant as well as the access to the proposed
restaurant.
Subd. 4. 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
Scheels addition and proposed restaurant building will not be detrimental to other
private development in the neighborhood.
Subd. S. 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 should provide
adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features.
Subd. 6. The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and
drainage problems that may be created by the development. This proposal
• replaces impervious surface with impervious surface and landscaped areas and
is not expected to generate increased run off or drainage problems.
Subd. 7. 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.
Subd. 8. 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.
Subd. 9. 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 section. Not applicable.
Subd. 10. The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the
standards applying to, permitted uses within the underlying zoning district,
• 2
or with standards specifically pp type applicable to the t e 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. In
calculating the parking ratio for the Mall at 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet,
adequate parking will be provided; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. § U.708 (Criteria for Type III Developments) provides in part the
relevant criteria for the review of this application; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department applied the criteria found at R.C.O. §62.708 to this
application and prepared the following findings of fact:
1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Capacity of Public Facilities: There does not appear to be any
capacity concerns related to the public facilities.
b) Geologic Hazards: Not applicable.
c) Natural Features: Not applicable.
• d) Residential Traffic Impact: The scale of the proposed expansion
is of a magnitude to require the preparation of a TIR (Traffic Impact
Report). The addition may impact local residential streets.
e) Traffic Generation Impact: The scale of the proposed
expansion is of a magnitude that would require the preparation of a
TIR (Traffic Impact Report).
f) Height Impacts: The proposed construction is compatible with
the surrounding development. The proposed construction of a one
story building is compatible with the surrounding development.
g) Setbacks: The proposed building location would be consistent
with permitted uses within the B-4 (General Commercial) Zoning
District.
h) Internal Site Design: 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 proposed amendment does
• 3
•
not include a detailed Landscape Plan showing foundation
plantings.around the building, plants and shrubs, or trees within the
parking areas or boulevards.
j) Ordinance Requirements: In calculating the parking ratio for
the Mall at 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, adequate parking will
be provided. The proposed amendment does not include a
detailed Landscape Plan showing foundation plantings around the
building, plants and shrubs, or trees within the parking areas or
boulevards.
k) General Compatibility: The proposed use is compatible with the
existing uses on the property and the surrounding properties.
I) 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.
2) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: Any modifications to the public water
• system would need to be reviewed and approved by City staff prior
to construction.
b) Geologic Hazard: Not applicable.
c) Access Effect: The scale of the proposed expansion is of a
magnitude that would require the preparation of a TIR (Traffic
Impact Report).
d) Pedestrian Circulation: 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.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: The proposed amendment does
not include a detailed Landscape Plan showing foundation
plantings around the building, plants and shrubs, or trees within the
parking areas or boulevards.
f) Site Status: The proposed amendment does not include a
detailed Landscape Plan showing foundation plantings around the
•
building, plants and shrubs, or trees within the parking areas or
boulevards,
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The proposed amendment does not
include a detailed Landscape Plan showing foundation plantings
around the building, plants and shrubs, or trees within the parking
areas or boulevards.
h) Final Building Design: The final building plan will consist of EIFS,
brick, cast stone, and other architectural features as shown in the
elevation drawings submitted by the applicant.
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Parking lot modifications adjacent to
the building are proposed with this project. Dimensions shown on
the Plan are consistent with the requirements of the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is
generally consistent with the underlying Zoning District B-4
(General Commercial). Sears currently has signage on three sides
of the building and will carry over to Scheels, however each wall
sing cannot exceed 20 percent of the facade on which it is located.
• k) 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, on February 12, 2014, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held
a public hearing on this restricted development conditional use permit, reviewed the application
according to the requirements of Sections 61.146 and 62.708, adopted the Planning
Department's recommended findings of fact and recommended approval of the application
subject to the following conditions:
1. If the extension of public watermain, and/or the addition of hydrant(s) is
required for this project, the execution of a City-Owner Contract and
dedication of an applicable public utility easement, will be required prior to
construction.
2. Grading Plan approval is required prior to construction.
3. The applicant shall complete a TIR (Traffic Impact Report) and any
necessary improvements as determined through the TIR process prior to
• any occupancy by Scheels or proposed restaurant space.
4. The City of Rochester (Well & Tower Site) property and structures must
be protected during construction and restored to pre-construction
condition, including landscaping, after removal of the temporary ring road.
5. Based on the ALTA survey within this submittal an additional 20' minimum
public utility easements are required in this area centered on the existing
public water mains as follows:
A. Along the entire north property line overlapping the existing natural
gas easement.
B. Along the north and west sides of the proposed Scheels building
area overlapping a portion of the existing public sanitary sewer
easement.
6. A portion of the existing 8" public water main along the east side of the
Scheels building will need to be relocated to the east to allow for the
entryway construction as shown in this submittal, which includes the
following items:
. A. Final water main construction plans with profiles need to be
prepared by a civil engineer, approved by RPU and City Public
Works and conform to standard City of Rochester requirements.
B. Water mains connecting to and including any fire hydrant are
considered public and need to be centered within a 20' minimum
public utility easement.
C. The owner is required to enter into a City/Owner Contract with the
City of Rochester for the installation of the public water main.
7. Any wall signage for the restaurant shall be limited to two facades and no
separate freestanding signage is permitted other than what is currently
existing.
8. There should be a designated pedestrian walkway within the parking area
east of Scheels allowing a pedestrian connection through the parking lot
to the north entrance of the Mall (Applebee's).
9. There should also be a designated pedestrian walkway connection from
the proposed Scheels to the proposed new restaurant across the access
road to the north that would also continue to the front entrance of the
• 6
• proposed restaurant building.
10. A detailed Landscape Plan is required showing foundation plantings
around the building, as well as plants, shrubs, and trees within the parking
areas and boulevards.
WHEREAS, the Common Council held a public hearing on March 3, 2014, on the
proposed amendment to the Planned Unit Development, and permitted all interested persons to
be heard; and,
WHEREAS, at the March 3`d public hearing, the Council considered the evidence and
testimony submitted, as well as the material contained in the meeting agenda; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance of the evidence submitted at the March 3`d
public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommended findings of fact and conditions of approval; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
submitted at the March 3`d public hearing, the Common Council determines that the Applicant
has satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §§61.146, 62.708 if the above ten conditions are completed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
• Rochester that the Type III, Phase II Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the
Apache Mall Shopping Center (#R2014-001 PUD), requested by MEPC Apache Properties, Inc.,
is in all things approved subject to the above ten conditions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS _ DAY OF / .r.. 2014.
PR SIDENT OP S ID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: ` `2"a 49-zel'
CITY CLERK �n
APPROVED THIS DAY OF r-ck , 2014,
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone 1 OJIUD.amendApacneMa1101
• -J