HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 626-13C-
0
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, JLR Dwellings, LLC, applied for a Type III, Phase Il, Mixed Use Development
#R2013-028CUP, Variance #R2013-017VAR, and Design, Modification #R2013-006DM. The
Applicant proposes to construct a mixed use development consisting of four residential dwellings
and 4,193 square feet of office space. The applicant is requesting a variance to the parking
standards and a Design Modification to the setback requirements. The property is located in the
northwest corner of the intersection of Second Street N.W., and 11t" Avenue N.W.; and,
WHEREAS, the property is described as follows:
Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, Louisa Reiter's Addition, in the City of Rochester, Olmsted
County, Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, since the property is zoned R-1 and some of the proposed uses are not
permitted within a R-1 zoning district, the Applicant is proposing the development through the
mixed use 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:
1. The applicant has demonstrated that the plan as submitted adequately
compensates for failing to address the criterion in question; and,
1
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. During the Second Street
reconstruction project in 2012 a 1" copper line was installed. This
service line is too small for the proposed building and must be
disconnected at the main in the street and the curb box removed
per the requirements of RPU-Water. A new 1 Y2" minimum copper
water service must be installed from the water in the street to the
building.
B. Geologic Hazards: Cascade Creek flows though the property to
• the north. It appears that the floodway for Cascade Creek runs
along its west property boundary. A portion of the site in inundated
with the shaded Zone X which is areas of the 500-year flood.
C. Natural Features: The property generally drains to the north,
towards Cascade Creek. The site is proposed to drain the majority
of the runoff to the rain garden in the northwest corner of the
property.
•
D. Residential Traffic Impact: Access to the site is by way of Second
Street NW. This roadway is a residential roadway. The amount of
traffic generated by the 4 residential units and the office use will not
cause the traffic volumes to exceed capacities on the local
residential street nor should it generate frequent truck traffic on the
residential street. The use will create additional traffic during the
evening and a nighttime hour on the local residential streets since
the previous use on the lot was a single family dwelling.
E. Traffic Generation Impact: The proposal is located along a
Major Urban Arterial roadway. Originally the applicant proposed
taking the access for the development off of this roadway but
2
• based on the advice of the City Engineer that access was moved to
Second Street NW.
F. Height Impacts: The sitting of the structure will not block vistas
from the primary exposures of the adjacent residential dwelling.
The tallest portion of the building is 25 feet which is below the
maximum height allowed in the R-1 zoning district. The two story
structure will not block the sunlight in the mornings and early
afternoons from reaching the adjacent property anymore that what
a single family dwelling could do if built on the lot.
G. Setbacks: The setbacks are below the minimum requirements;
however, the development is considered a New Urbanism design in
which buildings are placed close to the right-of-way to provide a
'pedestrian -friendly environment. The applicant is seeking approval
of a design modification for the proposed setbacks.
H. Internal Site Design: The site layout provides adequate
building separation and orientation for a new urbanism design. The
site design allows for pedestrian circulation throughout the
development, to the City. Park, and to the sidewalks within the
public right-of-way.
• I. Screening and Buffering: Additional screening/planting
should be provided along the west side of the parking area and the
southwest corner between the parking area and the road right-of-
way that adequately screens the parking area from the residential
dwelling to the west and from the public sidewalk to the south.
•
J. Ordinance Requirements: Using the parking requirement for
each use, the proposed development doesn't provide adequate
amounts of off-street parking. The applicant is seeking a variance
to the parking standards.
K. General Compatibility: The type of development proposed
appears to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as
dwelling units and an office within the R-1 Zoning District. It also
appears to be consistent with the Kutzky Park Land Use Plan
examples on Mixed Use and neighborhood coherence and
continuity.
L. Non -Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel: The proposed
development incorporates pedestrian oriented spaces and provides
3
n
L.J
direct and convenient pedestrian access to the building entrance(s)
from public sidewalks and parking areas. There are also bike racks
proposed on the north side of the building and there are two bus
stops within walking, or riding, distance along the bus route. One at
the corner of 11th Avenue NW and Third Street NW and the other
at 11th Avenue NW and First Street; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §60.424 provides the guidelines for approval of a Design Modification
involving side and front yards; and,
WHEREAS, based upon section 60.424, the Planning Department recommended the
following findings of fact as to the Design Modification application for the side yard setback
reduction:
1. As mentioned in Section 60.421 of the LDM, the LDM provides for certain
types of development identified as incentive development and restricted
developments which are permitted in certain instances although they are
not consistent with normal zoning district standards. These developments
are supported by the Land Use Plan but may require relaxation of certain
design standards in order to meet site constraints. The "Imagine Kutzky"
Vision Plan encourages mixed use area to build to the sidewalk to
encourage pedestrian walkability and to connect the inside of the building
and sidewalk outside with windows and doors.
2. Privacy: There are no dwelling units along 11th Avenue NW.
3. Light and air: Along the front of the building there are large windows that
provide adequate light into the building.
4. Use: The active yard use is directed to the parkland to the north of the
property. The applicant is also proposing steps that lead down to the
parkland area for additional active recreational opportunities; and,
WHEREAS, based upon section 60.424, the Planning Department recommended the
following findings of fact as to the Design Modification application for the front yard setback
reduction:
1. As mentioned in Section 60.421 of the LDM, the LDM provides for certain
types of development identified as incentive development and restricted
developments which are permitted in certain instances although they are
not consistent with normal zoning district standards. These developments
are supported by the Land Use Plan but may require relaxation of certain
design standards in order to meet site constraints. The "imagine Kutzky"
Vision Plan encourages mixed use area to build to the sidewalk and to
U
connect the inside of the building and sidewalk outside with windows and
doors.
2. The developer is proposing to provide foundation plantings along the front
of the building to provide privacy to the outdoor patios along the front of
the building but still maintain low growth vegetation along the portion of
the building occupied by the office in order to promote neighborhood
viability and cohesion; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §60.417 provides the following criteria by which variance requests
are to be analyzed:
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;
2. the extraordinary conditions or circumstances are due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner;
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;
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;
5. the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this
ordinance; and
6. the terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing twelve total parking spaces. Using the parking
standards for an office in the R-1 Zoning District, the parking requirements would be one
space per 200 sq. ft. The proposed office will be 4,000 square feet thus requiring 20 parking
spaces. The general parking requirements for an apartment building are one space per one
bedroom and 1 '/ spaces per two -bedroom unit. The proposed residential development
consists of one one -bedroom and three two -bedrooms. Based on these standards the
residential portion of the development would require six parking spaces. Total parking for 26
vehicles would be required. The Applicant is proposing 12 total parking spaces and seeks a
variance from the parking standard for the remaining required 14 parking spaces; and,
5
• WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff applied the criteria found in R.C.O. §60.417
and recommended approval of the requested variances in a report dated November 7, 2013,
making the following findings of fact:
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES: 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-1 (Mixed Single Family) Zoning District. Based on
the location of the property along an Urban Arterial, close to the downtown, and
in close proximity to major employers, it is likely that many of the tenants will not
have vehicles since they would be able to walk or bike to their desired
destination. In addition, the property is within a short walking distance of 2 bus
stops.
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. The property is located along an existing Urban Arterial as
identified on the ROCOG Transportation Plan. Also, given the urban nature of
the site, being close to the downtown and in close proximity to major employers,
it is likely that many of the tenants will not have vehicles since they would be able
to walk, bike, or ride the bus to their desired destination.
• REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request does appear to be a
reasonable use of the property. The placement of the building and the parking lot
in proximity to an existing Urban Arterial creates a buffer for the residences to
the west and by minimizing the number of parking spaces the ingress and egress
vehicular traffic congestions are minimized.
•
ESSENTIAL CHARACTER: The granting of this variance request would not be
substantially detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and the adjacent
property owners. The design and placement of the proposed building and the
reduced number of parking spaces allows more cohesion with the neighborhood
and creates more of a residential use consistent with the R-1 (Mixed Single
Family) Zoning District.
INTENT AND PURPOSE: The granting of this variance would not be detrimental
to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance because the
intent of the Ordinance is not compromised through the Variance process.
CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Land Use Plan and the
Imagine Kutzky neighborhood planning process encourages mix use development;
and,
0
WHEREAS, the Planning Department's November 7, 2013, staff report states that, if the
Common Council supports the application, Planning Department staff would recommend the
following conditions of approval be imposed:
1. Provide a revised Landscape Plan that shows complete screening of the
parking area from the property line to the west and from the public right-
of-way to the south.
2. Provide a revised Site Plan showing a twenty-five foot drive aisle for two-
way traffic within the parking lot as well as a reduction to the parking stalls
themselves to 17 feet in depth.
3. Provide a Building Elevation Plan that shows brick columns through to the
second story of the exterior fagade of the building.
4. A Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required.
5. Execution of a City prepared Maintenance Declaration Agreement may be
required for any on -site rate control, volume, and / or storm water quality
features that are required through the Grading Plan approval process.
• 6. The condition of existing pedestrian facilities, curb & gutter abutting the
frontages of the Property will be reviewed by Public Works staff and any
needed panel replacement or repair work shall be completed by the
Owner, at his/her own expense, concurrent with proposed redevelopment;
•
7. A new 1 '/" minimum copper water service must be installed from the
water main in the street to the building. The existing 1" service main
serving the property must be disconnected at the main in the street and
curb box removed per the requirements of RPU-Water;
8. This Property is subject to the following charges that shall be paid prior to
obtaining a utility connection permit in the case of SAC & WAC, and prior
to Building Permit issuance in the case of the PIF, or, at the City's
discretion, within 30 days after invoicing (rates where provided are valid
through 7/31/12 and subject to an ENR adjustment thereafter):
• Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $2,532.27 per developable
acre x 0.43 acres = $1,012.91
• Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $2,373.12 per developable
acre x 0.53 acres = $1,012.91
7
• Plant Investment Fee (PIF) — To be determined and collected
through the Building Permit; and,
9. 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 November 13, 2013, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
held a public hearing on these Mixed Use, Design Modification, and Variance applications, and
reviewed them according to the requirements of R.C.O. §§62.708, 60.421, 60.417. At its
November 13th meeting, the Commission recommended denial of the variance application
based upon the following findings of fact:
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES: There does 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-1 (Mixed Single Family) Zoning District.
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. The property is located along an existing Urban
Arterial as identified on the ROCOG Transportation Plan. Also, given the urban
nature of the site, being close to the downtown and in close proximity to major
employers, it is likely that many of the tenants will not have vehicles since they
would be able to walk, bike, or ride the bus to their desired destination.
REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be
a reasonable use of the property.
ESSENTIAL CHARACTER: The granting of this variance request would be
substantially not [sic] detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and the
adjacent property owners. The design and placement of the proposed building
and the reduced number of parking spaces allows more cohesion with the
neighborhood and creates more of a residential use consistent with the R-1
(Mixed Single Family) Zoning District.
INTENT AND PURPOSE: The granting of this variance would be detrimental to
the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance because the
intent of the Ordinance is not compromised through the Variance process.
CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Land Use Plan and the
Imagine Kutzky neighborhood planning process encourages mix use development;
•
•
E
and,
WHEREAS, in response to and as a result of its recommended denial of the Applicant's
variance application, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the
Applicant's Mixed Use Development and Design Modification applications; and,
WHEREAS, following the Planning and Zoning Commission's November 13th hearing, the
Applicant amended its site plan so that it complied with the first two conditions of approval
recommended by the Planning Department staff (see attachment #1); and,
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2013, the Common Council held a public hearing on the
Applicant's Mixed Use Development, Design Modification, and Variance applications, and
permitted all interested persons to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, at the December 16th public hearing, the Council heard about three hours of
testimony in favor of and in opposition to the Applicant's Mixed Use Development, Design
Modification, and Variance applications. In summary, the Applicant seeks approval of a mixed
use development with residential and office space components in a one-story building and
contends the applications satisfy all applicable zoning ordinance criteria. The majority of the
neighbors who spoke believe the site's land use is poor and not in keeping with good urban
design, the proposal is not a true mixed use since the residential use is not a second story
component (on top of the commercial use) of this proposal, and approval of the applications will
set a very bad precedent that will lead to future strip malls in this neighborhood; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
submitted at the December 16th public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the
Planning Department's recommended findings of fact as they pertain to the Applicant's Variance
application; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
submitted at the December 16th public hearing, the Common Council determines the Applicant
satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §60.417 and was, therefore, entitled to the requested variances;
and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
submitted at the December 16th public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the
Planning Department's recommended findings of fact and the seven conditions of approval as
described above (conditions #3 - #9) as they pertain to the Applicant's Mixed Use Development
and Design Modification applications; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
submitted at the December 16th public hearing, the Common Council determines that the
Applicant satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §§62.708, 60.424 subject to the seven conditions of
approval stated herein (conditions #3 — #9) and the stipulation that the 25-foot drive lane be
s
. reduced to 18 feet and that two parking spots be eliminated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the Mixed Use Development #R2013-028CUP, Variance #R2013-017VAR, and
Design Modification #R2013-006DM requested by JLR Dwellings, LLC, is in all things approved
subject to the seven conditions as described above (conditions #3 — #9) and the stipulation that
the 25-foot drive lane be reduced to 18 feet and that two parking spots be eliminated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council waive the Final Plan review phase of this
application.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS /&72t DAY OF , 2013.
/���� PRESIDE OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: ��`'0,U n
JSPUTY CITY CL
• APPROVED THIS 17rN DAY OF , 2013.
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone l O Wl ixed UseRestDevP re.1328
•
10
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
4a&)tri+ I(J-
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 : °o
,{ WWW.co.olmsted.mn.us/departments/planning
COUNTY OF
w
�R477iD
�' AUGUSY•r
C
�
MEMO
M
o
N
TO: Rochester Common Council
C
O
FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner
c
DATE: December 11, 2013
a�
RE: Type III, Phase II Mixed Use Development #R2013-028CUP, Variance #R2013-
d
017VAR, and Design Modification #R2013-006DM by JLR Dwellings LLC. The
a
applicant is. proposing to develop a mixed 'use development consisting of 4
residential dwellings and 4,193 sq. ft. of office space. The applicant is requesting
N
a variance to the parking standards and a Design Modification to setbacks. The
M
property is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of 2°d Street NW
and 11"' Avenue NW.
Co
d
On November 13, 2013 the City Planning and Zoning Commission (CPZC) held a public hearing
o
on the above mentioned items. The CPZC denied the request for the parking variance and as a
result of the denial of the variance recommends denial of the CUP and DM. The applicant has
o
appealed the denial of the variance so that appeal request is also before the Council on December
16"'.
j
Since the CPZC meeting on the 130', the applicant has revised the site plan to comply with
x
conditions recommended by staff if the CPZC would have recommended approval of the project.
�, 1
The modifications include the following:
s
a
➢ Providing a 25 feet wide drive aisle within the parking area.
Increasing the number of parking spaces on site (11 to 14).
CL
➢ Complete screening of the parking to the west with a 6 foot high wood stockade
17
fence with a solid hedge on the west side of the fence.
r,
➢ The office layout was flipped (conference rooms, restrooms on the south end of theLn
building with offices on the north end) in order to move the building. out of the
traffic visibility zone.
w
➢ The building exterior has changed based on the flipping of the layout of the office.
➢ The applicant is now only showing a single story office as before the elevations
Q
identified a higher elevation to give it a two story feel. The applicant is no longer
F
proposing the higher elevation.
j
The Council should hear the appeal and conditional use request concurrently since action on the
�1
i
items are related to each other.
d
E
R
BUILDING CODE 507/328-7111 GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/328-7100 HOUSING/HRA 507/328-7150
•
Q
w.u...., PLANNING/ZONING 507/328-7100 • WELUSEPTIC 5071328-7111
3*- FAX 507/328-7958
• AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER