HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 206-09 O
• RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Samaritan Bethany requested an amendment to Planned Unit Development
R-16 (Samaritan Bethany) to allow for the construction of two new additions: one consisting of a
three-story addition on the west end and the other a five-story addition above on-grade parking
on the south side of the existing building. The property is located along the north side of
Seventh Street N.W, along the south side of Eighth Street N.W., and along the east side of
Second Avenue N.W.; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its April 22, 2009, meeting
reviewed the proposed amendment in light of the criteria provided by section 61.146 of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances and made the following findings of fact:
61.146 Standard for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator,
Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a
conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the
proposed development is made:
1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and
pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and
ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden
upon public facilities.
• te additional traffic
The development likely will genera
parking on the
local streets since they are not providing the required parking
spaces as required for a nursing and personal care use in the R-3
zoning district. The applicant is pursuing to acquire property on the
north side of 8th Street NW to construct a parking lot to
accommodate some of the acquired parking.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and
structures will be detrimental to other private development in the
neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and
storm drains, water or similar public facilities.
The proposed addition will not impose undue burdens on the
sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water facilities.
3) The provision for on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide
adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of
the development.
Detailed landscaping and bufferyard plans will need to be submitted
with the final plan application.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems
that may be created by the development.
•
1
• Grading and drainage plan approval is required and a Storm Water
Management Area Charge will be applicable for any increase in
impervious surface associated with this project.
5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists
traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of
occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and
diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
Exterior lighting should not create undue hazards to motorists
traveling in the area since the development will need to comply with
exterior lighting standard "B."
6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not
providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for
emergency vehicles.
The proposed development does not appear to create hazards
related to site access for emergency vehicles.
7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial
change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such
that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this
paragraph.
• Not applicable
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards
applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with
standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under
consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters
such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a
variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant.
The applicant has requested a number of variances to the zoning
district standards of the R-3 district to allow the proposed addition;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its April 22, 2009, meeting
reviewed the proposed amendment in light of the criteria provided by section 62.630(1) of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances and made the following findings of fact:
62.630 Criteria for Incentive Developments: In determining whether to
approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and
Council shall be guided by the following criteria:
1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
• a) Suitability of the Area: Samaritan Bethany owns all of the
2
• properties, except for one lot with a single family dwelling,
west of the alley. A nursing home has been located in the area
for over 80 years. Over the years Samaritan Bethany has been
acquiring properties for expansion proposes.
b) Site Design Criteria:
1) Capacity of Public Facilities: Utilities are already available
to this project. Some utilities may need to be relocated
to accommodate this development. The Developer is
responsible for any costs associated with relocation of
utilities. All existing water services that will be unused
must be abandoned properly at the main in the street,
per City Public Utilities —Water Division requirements.
2) Geologic Hazards: No known geologic hazard are on
this property.
3) Natural Features: The arrangement of the buildings
utilizes the existing topography. The proposed
modifications will actually add additional landscaping to
the site.
• 4) Traffic Generation Impact: Additional traffic will likely be
generated because of the consolidation of the nursing
home facilities to this location. Since less parking
spaces are being provided that what exists there now
and additional rooms are being added, parking will likely
spillover into the residential neighborhoods. However,
the traffic generated by the use will not cause the
capacity of the adjacent streets to be exceeded.
5) Height Impacts: The existing nursing home structure
is 3 stories tall with a highest height of approximately 40
feet. One of the proposed additions has a height of 70
feet which would be just east of a single family dwelling.
The proposed addition should not deny adequate
sunlight to the single family dwelling and should not
destroy views from the primary exposure (front window)
of the single family dwelling.
6) Setbacks: The applicant has requested a variance to
the setback requirements in two locations where the
proposed addition doesn't meet the 35 foot setback
• requirement.
3
• 7) Internal Site Design: Not applicable.
8) Screening and Buffering: A detailed landscape planting
plan will need to be provided at the time of final plat
review. This planting plan will identify plantings that
will buffer the use from the adjacent properties.
9) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed addition does
not provide adequate amount of off-street parking for a
nursing and personal care facility based on the
requirements of the zoning district standards.
According to the applicant, they are acquiring properties
on the north side of 8th Street with a plan to build a
parking lot. Since this plan is a preliminary plan, a
parking plan should be provided along with the final
plan identifying parking of the facility; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission concluded the proposed amendment to the PUD complied
with the above ordinance requirements and recommended its approval subject to the following
condition:
. 1. Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to the
construction of the additions. The property is subject to a Storm
Water Management Plan Area Charge for any increase in
impervious surface. The property is subject to the SAC and WAC
charges listed in the letter dated April 10, 2009 from Rochester
Public Works;
2. The condition of the existing pedestrian facilities along the entire
frontages of the Property will be reviewed by Public Works staff
and any needed panel repair or replacement work shall be
completed by the Owner, at its own expense, concurrent with
construction of the proposed building expansion;
3. The existing water service to the house at 718 2"d Avenue NW
must be abandoned properly at the main in the street per the
requirements of RPU;
4. The proposed access connections to the public alley and the public
streets shall be designed and constructed as standard approaches;
5. The access off of the alley and driveway access to 7th Street NW
shall be designed to function for two way traffic;
•
4
• 6. The two existing access locations to 7t" Street NW that will no
longer is utilized after the construction of the project shall be
removed and the boulevards restored with curb, gutter and sod
concurrent with development;
7. Development of the Property is subjected to a Plant Investment
Fee (PIF) that will be calculated and collected through the Building
Permit review and approval process;
8. The temporary easement for a public alley on lot 25 shall be
vacated prior to development;
9. The parcels shall be combined into one lot of record prior to
development;
10. Lighting, signs, exterior storage and other site features must meet
the requirements for a nursing and personal care facility use in the
R-3 zoning district; and,
11. Concurrent with the submittal of the final plan, a parking plan shall
be provided to identify locations of parking for the hdevelopment and
what the plan is for parking on the north side of 8 Street NW; and,
• WHEREAS, the Common Council, at its May 18, 2009, meeting, considered the matter,
concurred with the Commission's findings and recommendation, and adopted the Commission's
recommended condition as its own.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Common Council of the City of Rochester
that applicant's proposed amendment to Planned Unit Development R-16 (Samaritan Bethany)
to allow for the construction of two new additions for the property located along the north side of
Seventh Street N.W, along the south side of Eighth Street N.W., and along the east side of
Second Avenue N.W., is in all things approved subject to the above 11 conditions.
•
5
• PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF 2009.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: �Ty ERK
)10
APPROVED THIS DAY OF l , L� , 2009.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
*Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
ZoneMPUD.amendR16
6