HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 110A-04 777
t
• RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Jodie Miller-Hammes & Stephan Palen requested an amendment to
Planned Unit Development B-71 (Seventh Day Adventist Church) to change the use of the
property to that of office space. The property is located at 911 11th Avenue N.W.; 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.
This site provides adequate parking for the proposed use. Parking
and circulation are pro osed to remain as they have been constructed,
with one access to 11 h Ave. NW and one to 10th St. NW. Converting
• the use of this property as an office should not result in creating safety
hazards or burdens upon public facilities.
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.
This application is for approval to convert the use of an existing
building. Structural changes are not proposed.
3) The provision for on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide
adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of
the development.
Existing landscaping in-place is not proposed to be modified. A solid
wood fence is present along much of the west property line. No on-
site modifications are proposed at this time, aside from changing the
approved use of the structure.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that
may be created by the development.
The proposed amendment should not result in changes to current
drainage patterns.
•
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.
The proposed amendment does not include any additional exterior lighting.
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 building is accessible from two roadways and the parking lot.
Access is not proposed to be changed.
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 change in use to permit an Office use in the existing building
is deemed reasonable and reasonably compatible with the adjacent
single-family neighborhood. The LDM currently permits Office uses in
the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district for properties that meet specific
site location criteria. Though this site does not meet the criteria for
being at the intersection of a collector roadway and a higher order
road; or at the intersection of two higher order roads; the property has
frontage and access along an Arterial (19 Ave.) roadway. Section
62.740 ADAPTIVE REUSE, CULTURAL BUILDINGS allows for the
"development of any building...originally constructed for...religious
Purposes, where the reuse of the property involves uses not normally
permitted..," Under these provisions, a the reuse of this building as
an office could have been considered through the Type 11 process if
the property were not a PUD. It would meet the criteria for being
located along a major local or higher order street. The intensity of
Floor Area Ratio is similar to the intensity that would be permitted
through a Type III permit in the R-1 district for an office; 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.
This change in use of an existing building should not result in a
demand on public facilities that cannot be accommodated.
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;
This proposal appears to meet these criteria.
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 proposed office use should not result in a burden to public
facilities. At this time it does not appear that any modifications are
necessary to accommodate the proposed use.
•
• 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:
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 addition does not increase the existing building
height
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.
No changes are proposed to the existing building or site layout.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
This change in use does not include a proposal to modify on-site
landscaping or screening. A solid wood fence is present along a
portion of the west property line, with a chain link fence located
along the southern portion of the west property line.
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.
This application includes the conversion of an existing building to
an office use. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is similar to the permitted
FAR for a Type 111 Office use in the R-1 district. Existing parking is
adequate to accommodate the proposed office use.
•
• 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 change in use to permit an Office use in the existing
building is deemed reasonable and reasonably compatible with the
adjacent single-family neighborhood. The LDM currently permits
Office uses in the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district for properties
that meet specific site location criteria. Though this site does not
meet the criteria for being at the intersection of a collector roadway
and a higher order road; or at the intersection of two higher order
roads; the property has frontage and access along an Arterial (11 rn
Ave.) roadway. Section 62.740 ADAPTIVE REUSE, CULTURAL
BUILDINGS allows for the "development of any building...originally
constructed for...religious purposes, where the reuse of the
property involves uses not normally permitted..." Under these
provisions, a the reuse of this building as an office could have been
considered through the Type I/ process if the property were not a
PUD. It would meet the criteria for being located along a major
local or higher order street. The intensity of Floor Area Ratio is
• similar to the intensity that would be permitted through a Type 111
permit in the R-1 district for an office; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment of the
PUD subject to the following conditions:
1. Office use shall be limited to a financial investment office (but not a bank)
or similar intensity office use.
2. Hours of operation, signage, and lighting standards for an office use in the
R-1 district shall be met.
3. Interior modifications shall be approved by Rochester Building safety prior
to occupying the building.
WHEREAS, the Common Council, at its February 18, 2004, meeting, continued its
consideration of this matter to March 1, 2004; and, -
WHEREAS, the Council, at its March 1, 2004, meeting, concurred with the Commission's
findings and recommendation, but adopted its own conditions as follows:
1. Signage, and lighting standards for an office use in the R-1 district shall
• be met;
i
2. Interior modifications shall be approved by Rochester Building safety prior
to occupying the building.
3. The following office uses are permitted: Financial Investment, Law Office,
Photographic Studio, Travel Agency, Architect, Insurance and Other Office
Uses of Similar Nature.
4. A "Financial Investment" use does not include a bank.
5. Only one tenant/user may occupy the building at any given time. If multiple
tenants are using the building, the use would be classified as a "business
center,"which is regulated differently in the Land Development Manual.
6. The hours and days of operation are Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m.,
until 7:00 p.m.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Common Council of the City of Rochester
that applicant's proposed amendment to Planned Unit Development B-71 to allow the existing
building to be used for office space is in all things approved subject to the above six conditions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
*ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS /57- DAY OF Mg&,,-( , 2004.
SIDENT OF SOD COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
T15107'y CITY CLER
APPROVED THIS DAY OF /%W10-I , 2004.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone2000TUD.amend7l
•