HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 132-10 • RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Rochester Area Foundation applied for a Restricted Development
Preliminary Plan #R2010-002CUP to construct a four-unit condominium building on property that
is zoned R-1. The property is located along the south side of West Center Street and has a
street address of 1126 West Center Street; and,
WHEREAS, since the property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) and a multi-family
residential use 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
reliminary plan and a final plan. The preliminary plan phase follows the Type III, Phase II
rocedure with a hearing before the Planning Commission and a hearing before the Council;
and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.707 states the Council must approve a restricted development if
it finds the development satisfies the criteria listed in R.C.O. §62.708, subd: 3 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,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.708 (Criteria for Type III Developments) provides the relevant
criteria for the review of this application; and,
•
1
• 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: The existing 3/" water line that
serves the existing dwelling is too small for the proposed building
and will need to be upgraded to at least a 1 Y2" copper line for the
domestic use. If the water service line is upgraded then the
existing 1/" line would need to be abandoned properly at the main
in the alley. The conditions of the pedestrian facilities along the
frontages of the property will be reviewed by Public Works staff and
any needed repairs and/or panel replacement will need to be
completed concurrent with the construction of the buildings.
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. The proposed development is the redevelopment of an
existing site.
• D. Residential Traffic Impact: The proposed development will not
cause traffic volumes to exceed the capacities on the local
residential streets. The proposed residential use should not
generate frequent truck traffic on the local residential street as the
development proposed is a residential use. The use will not create
additional traffic during the evening and nighttime hours on the
local residential streets then the residential use that was on the
property.
E. Traffic Generation Impact: The anticipated traffic generated
by the development will not cause capacity of the adjacent street to
be exceeded.
F. Height Impacts: The proposed buildings heights would be
compatible with the some of the existing residential dwellings in the
neighborhood. The existing structure on the lot is a 2 story along
with most of the structures on the block. The proposed building is
proposed to have a flat roof while the adjacent residential
structures have pitched roofs.
2
• G. Setbacks: Since the proposed use isn't permitted in the
underlying zoning of the property, staff use the zoning district
standards of the R-2, which allows the use proposed. The R-2
zoning district would be consistent with the low density residential
land use designation of the property on the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan Map. Using the regulations for a 4-
plex building in the R-2 zoning district, the use would require a
number of variances.
H. Internal Site Design: The proposed layout provides for the
desirable orientation of the building to the street frontage by
providing porches on the front as well as a covered entry.
I. Screening and Buffering: With there only being
approximately 5 feet of area along the sides of the building and
only 1' 8" on areas where the garage portion of the building there
isn't much room to provide plantings to screen the building from the
adjacent residential uses. With the design of the building it will not
blend with the adjacent dwelling on the block since the adjacent
dwellings all have pitched roofs while the proposed building has a
flat roof.
• J. Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development
doesn't provide adequate amounts of off-street parking for the
number of residential units. It also does not provide the landscape
area that would typically be provided for a development of this size.
K. General Compatibility: Most of the properties on the block are
used for single family dwellings. There is a 5-plex residential
dwelling located just two properties to the west and some duplexes
further west on the block by 12t" Avenue. The overall design of
the building is not similar in character of the surrounding
neighborhood as the closest dwellings to the property are single
family dwellings and have pitched roofs.
L. Non-Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel: The proposed
development provides direct and convenient pedestrian access to
the building entrance from the adjacent public sidewalk; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department's March 10, 2010, staff report states that, if the City
supports the application, Planning Department staff would recommend the following conditions
of approval be imposed:
3 -
• 1. Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to development, as
well as, payment of any applicable Storm Water Management Area
Charge for any increase in impervious surface.
2. The condition of Pedestrian Facilities along the frontages of the Property
will be reviewed by Public Works staff and any needed repairs and/or
panel replacement shall be completed concurrent with construction of this
building project.
3. The air conditioner units on the east side of the building shall be moved
so that they are located to a point that is behind the rear wall of the shed
on the adjacent property.
4. The proposed on-site conveyance channels, rain gardens and discharge
lines are conceptual since they have yet to be approved as part of the
grading plan and are subject to change through the. grading plan review
and approval process.
5. The existing 3/" water line that serves the existing dwelling is too small for
the proposed building and will need to be upgraded to at least a 1 '/2"
copper line for the domestic use. If the water service line is upgraded
then the existing 3/" line would need to be abandoned properly at the main
• in the alley.
6. Any changes to the alignment of the alley shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer. Depending on the alignment, a vacation of the alley
may be necessary.
7. Based on the calculation from the Park and Recreation Department, the
parkland dedication requirement for the development shall be met via
cash in lieu of land ($3,140) with payment due prior to development of the
property.
8. The applicant agrees that no deviation to the appearance of the building,
design, exterior fagade or landscaping will occur from the plans approved
by the City Council.
9. 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 by the City:
A. Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $2,270.17 per developable
acre x 0.13 acres = $295.12.
•
4
• B. Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ ,$2270.17 per developable
acre x 0.13 acres = $295.12.
C. Storm Water Management — to be determined at the grading plan
review.
D. Plant Investment Fee (PIF) — to be determined and collected
through the Building.
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2010, 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 denial of the
application on the basis that the proposed development: (1) was incompatible with the existing
zoning district which, in itself, was recently changed as part of a down zoning effort; (2) was
incompatible with adjacent uses in this residential area; and (3) contemplated uses permitted in
a R-4 zoning district in an area zoned R-1; and,
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2010, the Common Council held a public hearing on the restricted
development preliminary plan request and permitted all interested persons to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, Chris Flood, representing the applicant, appeared at the April 5th public
spearing and suggested the following findings of fact to be substituted for the Planning
Department's recommended findings of fact for portions of R.C.O. §62.708:
G. Setbacks: The R-2 zoning district standards are too restrictive
for this development and its application to this development would
thwart the purposes of the restrictive development "as stated in
R.C.O. §62.700. There are existing properties in this neighborhood
with similar or more restrictive setbacks. The proposed
development is consistent with other setbacks on similar properties
in the neighborhood.
I. Screening and Buffering: With there only being
approximately five feet of area along the sides of the building and
only 1' 8" on areas where the garage portion of the building there
isn't much room to provide plantings to screen the building from the
adjacent residential uses. The proposed development's screening
and buffering provisions offer the best that can be achieved given
the limited lot size of this property. The design of the building will
blend with the other dwellings in the neighborhood since other
dwellings have flat roofs and brick facades.
J. Ordinance Requirements: Although the proposed
5
. development doesn't provide adequate amounts of off-street
parking for the number of residential units, this development
contemplates a limited need for parking. Based on a similar
development operated by the applicant, parking should not be a
problem.
K. General Compatibility: Most of the properties on the block are
used for single family dwellings. There is a 5-plex residential
dwelling located just two properties to the west and some duplexes
further west on the block by 12th Avenue. Other dwellings in the
general neighborhood offer multiple units, flat roofs and brick
facades. At least one-third of the dwellings in .this general
neighborhood offer multi-units. The overall design of the building is
similar in character of the general neighborhood; and,
WHEREAS, Chris Flood testified that the proposed development and the resulting
removal of a blighted home with a viable and aesthetically pleasing multi-unit dwelling far
outweighed any need to strictly comply with the ordinance requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the Council concluded that, to the extent the applicant failed to satisfy any
approval criteria, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development adequately
compensates for failing to do so. The Council also concluded that the strict application of the
provisions of R.C.O. §62.708 will result in exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and
undue hardship upon, the applicant. As such, the Council invoked R.C.O. §§62.706, 62.707 and
62.712 in waiving the need to strictly satisfy the provisions of R.C.O. §62.708, subd. 2 (G), (1), (J)
and (K). In doing so, the Council found no substantial detriment to the public good and no
substantial impairment of the purposes of the zoning ordinance or the Land Use Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Council makes the following additional findings of fact concerning this
proposed development and application for a restricted development conditional use permit:
1. The house that is the subject of this development project is a blight on the
neighborhood, cannot be economically converted into a single family home
and is unsalvageable.
2. The proposed development project offers the unique opportunity to replace
a blighted, unsalvageable home with an affordable, mixed income family
unit that will benefit the entire neighborhood area and act as a model for
future development projects involving the removal of blighted,
unsalvageable homes elsewhere in the City.
3. The benefit to the general public offered by this development proposal and
the unique facts surrounding this development proposal outweigh the value
offered by strict compliance with applicable ordinance requirements and, as
•
6
• such, bring this proposal squarely within the purposes and intent of a
restricted development as expressed in R.C.O. §62.700; and,
WHEREAS, during the April 5th public hearing, the Council concluded there was no need
for condition #3 and, accordingly, deleted that condition; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
submitted at the April 5th public hearing, the Common Council adopted the Planning and Zoning
Department's recommended findings of fact for R.C.O. §62.708, subd. 2(A), (B), (C), (D), (E),
(F), (H) and (L); adopted Chris Flood's recommended findings of fact for R.C.O. §62.708, subd.
2 (G), (1), (J) and (K); waived the need to strictly satisfy the provisions of R.C.o. §62.708, subd. 2
(G), (1), (J) and (K) and determined that the Applicant satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §62.708 if
the above eight conditions (conditions #1, #2, #4-9) were satisfied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester
that the Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #R2010-002CUP requested by Rochester Area
Foundation is in all things approved subject to the above eight conditions (conditions #1, #2, #4-
9).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that it waive the final plan review of this
application as provided for in R.C.O. §62.712.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS `-h D OF ` { , 2010.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2010.
02
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone 10\RestDevPre.1002
•