HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 452-11 •
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, M2R2, LLC, applied for a Type III, Phase II Incentive Development (#R2011-
020CUP) and Design Modification #R2011-008DM to permit the construction of a four story, 24-
unit apartment building with on-grade parking on the property. The applicant is also requesting a
Design Modification to the bufferyard requirements. The property is located along the west side
of Seventh Avenue S.W., between West Center Street and First Street S.W., and just north of
the Irwin apartment building; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.630 sets forth the criteria for incentive developments; and,
WHEREAS, based upon section 62.630, the Planning Department recommended the
following findings of fact as to the Incentive Development application:
Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
A. Suitability of the Area: The proposed site is suitable as the location for an
Incentive Development. The property is located among higher density
residential buildings and within one block of the central development core-
medical district, which is a major employment center within the City.
B. Site Design Criteria:
(1) Capacity of Public Facilities: Utilities are available to serve the
development with some needing to be extended. The applicant will
need to obtain utility construction plans that conform to the City of
Rochester requirements.
(2) Geologic Hazards: Not applicable.
(3) Natural Features: Not applicable.
(4) Traffic Generation Impact: The proposal will result in adding
24 residential units in the neighborhood. The additional units do not
exceed the threshold to warrant a traffic study.
(5) Height Impacts: This project proposes four floors with a total
building height of approximately 48 feet. The location of the
structure will not deny sunlight to surrounding properties. The
proposed building will affect the views of some residential units in
the Raymond Apartments.
•
• (6) Setbacks: The provisions for the R-4 district apply. This building
will require variances to the setback requirements.
(7) Internal Site Design: This project is limited by the size and
orientation of the existing property. The proposed building is
proposed to have setback to the 7th Avenue SW right-of-way similar
to the Raymond Apartment.
(8) Screening and Buffering: Screening is not required for the
project. The landscaping plan shows planting along the frontage of
the building with patio area being developed between the proposed
building and existing Raymond Apartments to the south. In
addition to the required boulevard planting the only property
boundary required to have a bufferyard is the west side. The
applicant is seeking a design modification to this bufferyard since
there already is a fence along the west property boundary which
would block any plantings planted along this property boundary.
The outdoor trash dumpster area will need to be screened to
comply with Exterior Storage Standard "T" of section 63.242.
(9) Ordinance Requirements: The proposal will need multiple
variances and a Design Modification as noted in this staff report;
(10) Non-Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel: The proposed
building consists of infill development that provides for reasonable
pedestrian access to the major employment centers located in the
CBD and St. Mary's Hospital; and,
WHEREAS, based upon section 60.424, subd. 8, the Planning Department
recommended the following findings of fact as to the Design Modification application:
1. There is an old wooden fence that screens this property from the adjacent
property to the west. None of the other sides of the property require a
bufferyard except for boulevard plantings within the right-of-way of Seventh
Avenue S.W.
2. A condition of approval should be added to this design modification that
would require the applicant/property owner to install a fence if the existing
fence to the adjacent property is ever removed.
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing to consider this matter and, following its public hearing, adopted all of the Planning
Department's recommended findings of fact. As a result, the Commission recommended
approval of both applications subject to the following conditions:
2
1. Separate Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to
• development for this project, as well as, payment of a Storm Water
Management Area Charge for any increase in impervious surface.
2. On-street parking cannot be designated for the benefit of a specific
property and the proposed 5 on-street stalls should not be considered as
"available" for this development.
3. The condition of existing pedestrian facilities, curb & gutter, abutting the
frontage of the Property will be reviewed by Public Works staff and any
needed panel replacement or repair works share be completed by the
Owner, at its own expense, concurrent with proposed development.
4. Execution of a city-Owner Contract is required prior to construction of any
onsite and offsite public improvements required for this development.
5. 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 7/31/11and subject to an ENR adjustment thereafter):
A. Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $2,349.62 x 0.34 acres =
• $798.87;
B. Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $2,349.62 x 0.34 acres =
$798.87; and
C. Plant Investment Fee (PIF) — to be determined and collected
through the building.
6. Since it is likely that many of the tenants will not have vehicles and will
rely on other modes of transportation, additional bicycle racks shall be
provide on the site.
7. The applicant shall consult with the City Forester on what needs to be
done in order to protect the large tree, located within the boulevard in front
of the property, during construction of the building and parking bay.
8. The parking spaces are made available for the tenants of the Raymond
Apartments.
9. The outdoor trash dumpster area will need to be screened to comply with
Exterior Storage Standard "T" of section 63.242.
3
• 10. 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.
WHEREAS, the Common Council held a public hearing on the Incentive Development
(#R2011-020CUP) and Design Modification #R2011-008DM requests on September 19, 2011,
and gave all interested persons the opportunity to make presentations and give testimony
concerning the application; and,
WHEREAS, at the September 9th public hearing, the applicant's representative agreed
with all of the Commission recommended conditions of approval; and,
WHEREAS, based upon all of the evidence and testimony submitted during the
September 9th public hearing, the Council accepts the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommended findings of fact and conditions of approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that it adopt the Planning and Zoning Commission's findings of fact and that the
Incentive Development (#R2011-020CUP) and Design Modification #R2011-008DM requested
.by M2R2, LLC, is granted subject to the above ten conditions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council waive the final plan review for this project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS Y FC 1 2011.
a_t; PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: a0,ftl
ty CITY CL RK
APPROVED THIS Q041 DAY OF Y12 LMA- , 2011.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone1011ncendev.11-020.prelim dm
4