HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 058-12 77
• RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Gerrard Properties applied for a Restricted Development #R2011-030CUP.
The Applicant proposes to construct a mixed use development consisting of underground
parking and a grocery tenant occupying the main level with three upper floors of residential units.
The main floor grocery tenant is approximately 27,637 square feet and the residential units
consist of 62 units with 32 studio, 12 one-bedroom, 11 two-bedroom and three three-bedroom
units. Parking for the development would consist of 46 underground spaces and 70 spaces at
the corner of Second Avenue S.W., and Sixth Street S.W. Numerous streetscape
improvements within the public roadway adjacent to the development are proposed as part of
the project. The property is located along the west side of First Avenue S.W., along the north
side of Sixth Street S.W., and along the east side of Second Avenue S.W.; and,
WHEREAS, the legal description for the property covered by the proposed Restricted
Development is described as Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12, all in Block 1, ORIGINAL PLAT of
Town, now City, of Rochester according to the plat thereof on file at the County Recorder's
office, Olmsted County, Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, since the parking requirements for the development does not meet the
requirements of the Land Development Manual, the Applicant is proposing the development
through the restricted development process; and,
0 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
• 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. First Avenue and Sixth
Street S.W., streets are planned to be reconstructed as part of a
sanitary sewer relief line project to be done this year. Coordination
must be made with the City Public Works Department on the new
water serve location for this building so it can be added to the
• construction plans for the adjacent highways.
B. Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the
property.
C. Natural Features: Not applicable.
D. Residential Traffic Impact: Not applicable as the development is
located in the central business district.
E. Traffic Generation Impact: The anticipated traffic will not
cause the capacity of the adjacent roadways to be exceeded. Sixth
Street S.W., is designated as a Secondary Urban Arterial on the
Functional Designation map of the 2040 Long Range
Transportation Plan.
F. Height Impacts: The proposed building height and placement is
compatible with the surrounding properties as more redevelopment
will likely occur in the area in the future. The building is consistent
with the implementation of the "Main Street"/mixed use district of the
2
• Downtown Master which promotes three to four story buildings along
First Avenue.
G. Setbacks: Within the CDC-Fringe District the minimum building
setback is zero feet. Portions of the building encroach into the public
right-of-way therefore the developer will be seeking a revocable
permit for these encroachments.
H. Internal Site Design: The orientation of the building has the
main entrance at the intersection of two roadways which helps
define the presence for the building at this location.
I. Screening and Buffering: Buffering and screening is
provided for the surface parking lot. With the recommended
changes to the parking, additional landscaping and buffer areas
could be provided. Since the development is located in the CDC-
Fringe District, the applicant will need to supply the City Forester and
Public Works Department construction plans indicating the location,
depth, size of area of CU-Structural Soil or Deep Root Cells or
similar system acceptable to the City for meeting the boulevard tree
ordinance.
• J. Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development
doesn't provide the required parking per the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. Based on the location and to whom the project
will be market for, the parking proposed is probably adequate of the
potential tenants of the building. Currently, a committee is drafting
language for an overlay parking district that would apply to the
development. Based on the preliminary language drafted by this
committee, the development exceeds the requirements.
K. General Compatibility: This development is one of the first
redevelopment projects in the area that consist of a mixed use. This
development will help set the tone for future redevelopments in the
area.
L. Non-Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel: Pedestrian
oriented space is incorporated into the streetscape design along
the project frontages. Depending on the final design of the
adjacent roadways as part of the reconstruction project, bicycle
parking is provided on the site; and,
•
3
• WHEREAS, the Planning Department's January 6, 2012, staff report states that, if the
City supports the application, Planning Department staff would recommend the following
conditions of approval be imposed:
1. The applicant shall make the following changes to the parking lot design:
A. Reducing the stall width to 8'8" instead of the 9' shown and take
the 3 Y2 feet gained and add it to the landscape area along 2nd
Avenue;
B. Look at accommodating small car and short/long term parking
ratios as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance;
C. Close off the middle access from the alley to the parking lot since
this access is in front of west entrance to the grocery store; and
D. Identify and define how pedestrians from 2"d Avenue SW can
safety move across the parking lot to get to the entrance on the
west side of the building;
2. Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to development, as
• well as, payment of any applicable Storm Water Management Plan Area
Charge (SWMPAC).
3. Execution of a Revocable Permit and Streetscape plan is required to
address the proposed private encroachment into the public right-of-way.
4. Execution of a City-Owner Contract is required prior to construction of any
public improvements to serve the development.
5. Development of the property is subject to the terms of the Development
Assistance Agreement executed for the development.
6. The Owner shall coordinate with the public works department on the utility
connection locations so that they can be added to the construction plans
for 1st Avenue and 6th Street.
7. If the alley is to be widen to 21 feet when reconstructed by the Owner as
part of the development, the Owner shall dedicate an additional 3 feet of
public right-of-way and work with the City engineer to achieve an
acceptable design for transition back to 18 feet at the north end of the
property.
4
• 8. The plans and elevation of the proposed freestanding sign located in the
southwest corner of the parking lot shall be provided to staff and included
in the documents for the Council review on this development.
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2012, 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. The Commission recommended approval
based upon Planning Department staffs recommended findings of fact, the deletion of the
staffs recommended condition of approval #1, and subject to the staffs remaining
recommended conditions of approval (#2 -#8); and,
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2012, the Common Council held a public hearing on the
restricted development preliminary plan request and permitted all interested persons to be
heard; and,
WHEREAS, at the February 6th public hearing, the planning staff recommended the
addition of the following condition of approval:
9. The Council's actions in approving this development occur in response to
the applicant's or its 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, based upon a preponderance of the evidence submitted at the February 6th
public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Planning Commission's
recommended findings of fact and conditions of approval #2 - #8, and the Council's addition of
condition of approval #9; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
submitted at the February 6th public hearing, the Common Council determines that the Applicant
satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §62.708 subject to the eight conditions stated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the Restricted Development#R2011-030CUP requested by Gerrard Properties is
in all things approved subject to the above eight conditions (conditions #2 -#9).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council waive the Final Plan Review.
•
5
• PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS &7& D Y1 F 12.
P S NT OF SAI COM ON COUNCIL
Of
ATTES Q���&�
ITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS IN DAY OF �40ZU rW 2012.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone10\RestDevPre.1130
i
6