HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 333-11 • RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Accessible Space, Inc., applied for a Restricted Development #R2011-
006CUP to construct a 24-unit housing development on 1.18 acres of land. The building would
be a two-story building for low income residents with physical disabilities. The property is located
along the*.west side of Kenosha Drive N.W., north of Valley High Road N.W.; and south of the
recently completed Rochester Senior Housing development; and,
WHEREAS, since the property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) and a multi-
family dwellings greater than a four-plex is not a permitted use for this 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
Opreliminary 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,
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,
•
1
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.708 (Criteria for Type III Developments), subd. 2 provides the
Orelevant 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. An 8" public water main
must be extended from the existing Kenosha Drive NW water main
across the north side of the property to properly serve the property
to the west and an on-site fire hydrant shall be provided at the end
of the parking lot in the general area of the "yard storage" shed.
Final utility construction plans with profiles will need to be approved
by the various agencies and conform to standard City of Rochester
requirements.
B. Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the
property.
C. Natural Features: There are no known unique natural features at
the site. There is approximately nine feet in elevation change from
• the north end to the south end of the site.
D. Residential Traffic Impact: Access to the site is by way of
Kenosha Drive NW which is currently the only entrance into the
Badger Hills Development. Eventually, the Badger Hills
Development will have other access locations into the development
once the adjacent properties are developed. The traffic projected to
be generated from the development should not cause the traffic
volumes to exceed capacities on local residential streets since the
applicant has stated that only approximately 40% of the residents
who would reside in the building own or drive vehicles. The
proposed residential use should not generate frequent truck traffic
on the local residential street since the proposed development is at
the entrance to the Badger Hills development and trucks serving
the development would have no need to go into the area of the
development consisting of the single family detached dwellings.
The use will create additional traffic during the evening and
nighttime hours on the local residential streets but probably not
anymore that what occur if the property was developed with uses
permitted in the R-2 zoning district.
E. Traffic Generation Impact: The anticipated traffic will not
2
• substantially increase the capacity of the adjacent roadways.
F. Height Impacts: The proposed buildings fall within the permitted
height limits within the R-2 zoning district.
G. Setbacks: The proposed building is at the minimum or exceeds
the setbacks requirements for any of the uses listed in the R-2
zoning district.
H. Internal Site Design: The site layout provides adequate
building separation and orientation to the existing multi-family
building located to the north. Access to the site is from Kenosha
Drive NW. This access will be a shared access with the
undeveloped lot to the west.
I. Screening and Buffering: The proposed landscaping plan
provides abundant landscaping throughout the property, however,
using the bufferyard indicator for a multi-family dwelling additional
plantings will needed to achieve a bufferyard meeting the "B"
bufferyard standard along the west property line.
J. Ordinance Requirements: It appears that based on the
• proposed use there is adequate parking proposed for the
development. The proposed development includes 48% of
landscape area which would be more than what would be required
for any of the residential uses in the R-2 zoning district.
K. General Compatibility: The general density and overall site
design is similar to the adjacent development located to the north
that was recently constructed by the applicant. This location of the
property is at the intersection of a major regional arterial roadway
and the main and currently only entrance into a residential
development. Therefore, the surrounding neighborhood should not
be affected by this proposed use.
L. Non-Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel: A sidewalk
connection is provided to the existing sidewalk along Kenosha
Drive NW as well as from the parking lot to the entrances on the
north side of the building. The property isn't located along the
public transit route however; it is likely that the residents would
qualify for ZIPS Dial-a-Ride service; and,
•
3
• WHEREAS, the Planning Department's June 3, 2011, staff report states that, if the City
supports the application, Planning Department staff would recommend the following conditions
of approval be imposed:
1. Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to development, as
well .as, payment of- a Storm Water Management Area Charge for any
development in excess of Land Use Factor 1.0.
2. The proposed development extends beyond Lot 1, Block 1 Badger Hills
4th Subdivision onto a portion of Lot 2. The Badger Hills 4 ih Subdivision
will need to be replatted to create one lot of the development.
3. Construction of a 10 foot wide bituminous path along the entire frontage of
Valley High Road NW and construction of the pedestrian ramp connecting
the path to the sidewalk along Kenosha Drive NW, is required at the
owner's expense, concurrent with the development of the property.
4. An 8 inch public water main must be extended from the existing Kenosha
Drive NW water main across the north side of the property (centered
within the 20 foot utility easement) to properly serve the property to the
west.
5. The applicant shall provide an additional fire hydrant at the end of the
parking lot in the general area of the "yard storage" shed. A 20 foot wide
utility easement must be dedicated for the fire hydrant and connecting
laterals.
6. The applicant shall pay the parkland dedication requirement of $9,500
prior to the issuance of any development permits for the property.
7. The site plan shall be revised to provide a bufferyard meeting the "B"
bufferyard standard along the west property line.
8. All final utility construction plans shall be approved and the necessary
utility easements dedicated prior to the issuance of any development
permits for the property.
9. Any needed repairs and/or panel replacement to sidewalk and curb
resulting from the construction of this project shall be completed
concurrent with the completion of the building.
10. The sign standard "A" shall be the size and amount of signage allowed for
the development.
•
4
•
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2011, 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 and subject to the staffs
recommended conditions of approval; and,
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2011, the Common Council held a public hearing on the restricted
development preliminary plan request and permitted all interested persons to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance of the evidence submitted at the July 6th public
hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Planning 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 July 6th public hearing, the Common Council determines that the Applicant
satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §62.708 subject to the ten conditions stated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the Restricted Development #R2011-006CUP requested by Accessible Space,
Inc., is in all things approved subject to the above ten conditions.
0 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS -67N D Y OF CQkf
RES ENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: CiYi�.J
ITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS 7& DAY OF r��y , 2011.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone 10\RestoevPre.1106
5