Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 094-04 D �O • RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Forsons Investment LLC, requests an amendment to Planned Unit Development B-60 (Barclay Square) to remove a portion of the existing building located along the southern edge of the Barclay Square facility to allow the addition of two free-standing commercial buildings. One of the two proposed commercial buildings would be located along the southern edge of the Barclay Square building, consisting of 11,600 square feet, and the other commercial building, consisting of 3,500 square feet, would be located along the northern portion of the Barclay Square property. This PUD amendment includes reconfiguration of the existing parking layout. The property is located south of County Road 8 and west of Highway 52; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its January 28, 2004, 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. The provisions for vehicle loading, unloading, vehicular and pedestrian circulation should not create hazards. 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 construction of the a one story free standing commercial building structure will be not detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood. 3) The provision for on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. The proposed amendment should provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. • This proposal replaces impervious surface with impervious surface and landscaped areas and is not expected to generate increased run off or drainage problems. 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. 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 proposed amendment to PUD B-60 does appear to comply with the standards of the B-4 District, except for exterior lighting; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its January 28, 2004, meeting reviewed the proposed amendment in light of the criteria provided by Section 62.708 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances and made the following findings of fact: 62.708 Criteria for Type III 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) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed development. • 2 • There do not appear to be any capacity concerns related to the public facilities. All existing water services that will be unused must be abandoned properly at the main per requirements of the RPU Water Division. Additional 20-foot minimum utility easements for any hydrant relocation must be dedicated. if additional extensions of the water main are required to provide protection to either of these buildings then a City-Owner Contract is required. b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans. Not applicable c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site. Not applicable d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed development: • 1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets; 2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets; 3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets; The scale of the proposed expansion is not of a magnitude to require the preparation of a traffic impact study. The addition is not expected to impact local residential streets. e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. The scale of the proposed expansion is not of a magnitude to require the preparation of a traffic impact study. f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the • surrounding development. Factors to consider include: 3 • 1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year; 2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of adjacent residential. dwellings created due to differences in elevation. The proposed construction of a one story building is compatible with the surrounding development, g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. The proposed building location would be consistent with permitted uses in the B-4 District. h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points. The proposed project appears to meet adequate building separation to the orientation of the existing buildings, open spaces, • and street frontages. i) Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse.storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses. The proposed amendment includes adding a landscape area on the west side of the proposed building. j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements. The approved PUD is currently providing 667 parking stalls. The proposed amendment will provide the site with 652 parking stall. The number parking stalls available is exceeded by 32 of the required parking stalls using the current ordinance standards for a business center. • 4 • k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings. The proposed use is compatible with the existing uses on the property and the surrounding properties. 2) Final Development Plan Criteria: a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet the requirements and specifications, which the applicable utility has adopted. There do not appear to be any capacity concerns related to the public facilities. All existing water services that will be unused must be abandoned properly at the main per requirements of the RPU Water Division. Additional 20-foot minimum utility easements for any hydrant relocation must be dedicated. if additional extensions of the water main are required to provide protection to either of these buildings then a City-Owner Contract is required. • b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic hazard have been incorporated into the development plan or such areas have been set aside from development. Not applicable. c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and located so as to: 1. Provide adequate separation from existing street intersections and adjacent private driveways so that traffic circulation problems in public right-of-ways are minimized; 2. Not adversely impact adjacent residential.properties with factors such as noise from accelerating or idling vehicles or the glare of headlights from vehicles entering or leaving the site. In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified potential problems in the operation of access points, plans for private improvements or evidence of planned public improvements, which will alleviate the problems, have been provided. The proposed changes to the parking lot should help in circulation on the property. There should not be any impact to local residential • streets. 5 • d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that pedestrians can move safely both within the site and across the site between properties and activities within the neighborhood area, and where appropriate, accommodations for transit access are provided. Not applicable. e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has been prepared which indicates the finished site will be consistent with the landscape character of the surrounding area. The.proposed amendment provides a landscape area on the west side of the proposed building as-well as to the north of the building. These landscaped areas should enhance the appearance of the surrounding area. f) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future maintenance and ownership pattern of the project, including common areas, the completion of any platting activities, and the provision of adequate assurance to guarantee the installation of required public improvements, screening and landscaping. Not applicable. • g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design contains earth forms, structures and plant materials, which are adequate to satisfy the need, identified in Phase I for the project. Not applicable. h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height, Setbacks, and Internal Site Design. Construction of a one-story building should not be in conflict with the principles identified in the approved PUD. The design of the building will match the character of the existing buildings and will be built using similar materials. i) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and circulation aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of design. Parking lot modifications adjacent to the building are proposed with this project. The proposed changes to the parking lot should help in circulation on the property. j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in • regards to signage and other appearance controls, and with general 6 standards such as traffic visibility and emergency access. The proposed development is consistent with the underlying zoning district B-4; and, WHEREAS, the Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment of the PUD subject to the following conditions: 1. If the extension of public watermain, and/or the addition of hydrant(s) is required for this project, the execution of a City-Owner Contract, and dedication of an applicable public utility easement, will be required prior to construction. 2. All existing water services that will be unused must be abandoned properly at the main per requirements of the RPU Water Division. 3. Grading Plan approval is required prior to construction. 4. The proposed expansion is contingent upon the theater be removed and the area being reconfigured for parking. 5. The PUD shall be amended through the amendment process in order to • construct the 3,500 sq. ft. building shown in the northerly portion of the site. WHEREAS, the Common Council concurs with the Commission's findings and recommendation; • 7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Common Council of the City of Rochester •that applicant's proposed osed amendment to Planned Unit Development B-60 to allow the removal of p a portion of the existing building located along the southern edge of the Barclay Square facility to allow the addition of two free-standing commercial buildings and the reconfiguration of the parking layout is in all things approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS / DAY OF 2004. PRESIDENT OF SAID'COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS 19tDAY OF , 2004. MAYOR OF SAID CITY kSeal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) Zone2000TUD.amendNa I,I _